MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1584, 30 October 1912, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.MJ MILKING MACHINE. CITY FIRM AM) THE FEILDIXG FAHMEK. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, J. B. SlacEwan and Co., Ltd., Wellington, claimed .£l6 .Is. Sd. from W. l<. Goodrick, farmer, Feilding, for hire and insurance of a milking ' machine • and for accessories to the milking plant. The rate- of hire was .£2O per quarter. Defendant Goodrick counter-claime<l for .£IOO. He stated that the machine had failed to milk his cows, although plainrift's had warranted that it would perform its, work satisfactorily. Tho effect of tho machine's failure had been to dry off tho cows several months earlier than usual, through which, ho said, ho hud sustained monetary loss. He therefore claimed ,£IOO damages, and he. sued for tho return of his deposit of X'CO. Mr. F. G. Dalziell appeared- for the plaintiif, and Mr. T. X. Ilolmden for the defendant. A good, deal of evidence was hoard, and at a p.m. tihe. case was adjourned till this afternoon. PLASTERERS' CASE. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgment in the case in which the Wellington Plasterers' Industrial Union proceeded against T. Foley and Sons, Ltd., of Wellington, for an alleged breach of tiio awf.rd.

The breach was stated to havo consisted ofi plaintiffs employing A. Bain on country work, at Hawcra, under circumstances requiring him to slpcp away from his homo from July Ito September 12. They ( had failed to provi<lo him with a tent or ■other sleeping accommodation. His Worship decided against the plaintifT union on the ground that Bain's transactions did not come within the. scope, of tho Wellington award.

UNDEFENDED DEBTORS. In Hie foJJoirin? onscs judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— William Lingavd and Co. v. C. H. Ilnrris. .81, and costs Bs.; Hosenberg and Co. r. Knic.-t ]3. ■ .Wnllis, .£1 35.,' and 55.; Frederick E. Goodey:' v. . John Ferguson, XI 65., and as.; Stevens and . Co. v. Tho Sliaunon Land aud Sawrailling

Co., £iS 9a., and £1 35.; Frost and Frost v. -Mrs. Mary Pope, -W 10s., and 10=.; John William Sl'Kwan v. Ivo Grcor, Cs. till., mid Ss.; Ilermaim Hoimann v. G. Wright, Ms. Oil., ami Ss.j same v. An-tli-ou-' Anderson, .£1 Us. 8(1., and 75.; Tho Crown v. Alphonso Jl'illiam Henslcy, .CI o=. lOd., and 12?.; Hio Wellington Pnljlishing Co. v. William Skipworth, 55., and Ss.; Edwin Arnold v. W. Ilargrcavcs, 17.-;. 6d., and o=.; James Smith, litd>, v. .ioliu Mason, .£.l 7s. Od.. and ins.; and C. Smith, Ltd., v. John Searlc, 13s. 3d., and 7s.

POLICE CASE

Oα 3 charge of having stolen £1 JOs.from Thomas Connolly, Thomas Barry was convicted and ordered to appear for sentence when called on.