LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1692, 7 March 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER .COURT. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) THE ARTIST AND HER WORK. PHOTO. ENLARGEMENTS. At the Magistrate's Court yestoTday Maisie Carte, artist, of Wellington, sued Thomas M. Stephens for the sura of £7 13s. for work executed. It appears from tho proceedings that plaintiff had been engaged at a fixed rate by the defendant to paint enlargements from photographs. Plaintiff had completed tho work and sued for the money due—£7 13s. Tho amount due was in respect to all work done in March, 1912. For tW defence it was alleged that it waa the custom that the artist should not bo paid until the other party to tho agreement had received payment from customers. As defendant had not received payment from them he did not pay tho artist. Plaintiff denied that there was any custom in such matters at all. As to tlie quality of tho work done defendant had expressed satisfaction with it. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount, plus »£1 15s. for alteration work which had been executed by another artist. Mr. Luke appeared for plaintiff and Mr. F. Houldsworth for defendant. LANDLADY AND TENANT. Annie Walls, boardinghouse-keeper, Willis Street, sued Arthur Ford for the recovery of ils alleged damages done to a shop through the removal of electric light fittings, shelving, counter, partition, table, and chairs, built into premises let by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff asserted that the articles removed had been nailed in, and had been there for some years. • • The defendant who had carried on a fish business on the premises, stated that th# partition was not nailed in, and also that the counter was removed. None of the articles were being nailed in. He had paid ,£lB for the utensils and fittings, and Webster (the previous tenant) had told him that "all within tho four walls belonged to him." With some emphasis he remarked that he was afraid to leavo his wife on the premises as tho place was overrun with rats. He had sold tho fittings for Bs., but no auction room would take them. Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for and <£3 lis. costs. PAID INTO COURT. , £• H. Memotti, who was represented by Mr. Machell, claimed 7s. from' F. 1 Khouri (Mr. Jackson) for goods supplied. Tho sum of .£32 12s. had been paid into Court. His Worship gave judgment for tho full amount with costs.

DEFAULT DEBT CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in, the following cases:—E. J. iorbes and Son, Lt<l., v. A. Hurley, <£3 7s. Bd., costs 10s.; N.Z. Stato Guaranteed Advances Office v, John J. Costnll, £17 08., costs 183.; The Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Eata Paki, £1 9s. 6d„ costs lis.; v. S. A. Olsen, .£1 125., costs 10s.; Charles B. Parata v. Jliki Pukctapu, .£5 145., costs £114s. 6d.; Laerv and Co., Ltd., v. S. Harrison, .£2 9s. 3*d„ costs 55.; Charles M. Begg v. Eccledonno F. Hiscocks/ *61 Bs. Cd., costs 55.; Wright, Dixon, and \Vitt t. James Rapier, ,£3 7s. 9d., costs 10s.; E. W. Hills and Co., Ltd., v. Ernest E. Soraervillc, .£sl 4s. lid., costs .£3 15s. Gd-; 11.I 1 . R. Russell and Co., Ltd., v.'John Curry, .£ls 3s. Bd., costs £3 2s. fid.; N.Z. Consolidated Dcntnl Co., Ltd., i v. P. G. Hume, .615 13s. 9d., costs .£1 10s. Gd.; Veitch and Allan v. J. Rona, •S3 19s. 4d., costs 175.; Pringlo's, Ltd., v. D. S. Wylie, £23 lis. lid., costs £2 Its.; Arthur Bolton v. J. Jl'Leod, 19s. 6d., costs 75.; P. R. Russell and- Co., Ltd., v. John Curry, £2i ss. 10d., costs .£3 75.; same v. Hugh Curry, .613 Bs. 8d„ costs £1 18s. Gd. ; Caroline Barlow v. Harold Lockwood, ,£l3 13s. 8d„ costs, JJMOs. Gd.; "The Triad," Ltd., v. John Burns, Ltd., .£l7. costs .£1 10s, 6d. j Bates and Lees v. C. E. Turner, lis. 10d., costs 95.; William B. Bodcll v. John Bennie and E. P. Hanson, .£49 Os. 4d'., costs £3 10s. 6d.; Thomas S. Weston v. C. H. W. Dixon,- JE6, costs £1 Bs. Gd.j The Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. John Ropata, .£8 12s. 4d., costs £1 lis. 6d.; Wellington Loan Co., Ltd., v. S. Jackson Binning, £27 lis., costs 175.; John Duthio and Co., Ltd., v. Motueka Fruitgrowers' Co-operative Society, Ltd., 13s. 5d., costs £7 lis. ' • JUDGMENT SUMMONS. M. V. Hill was ordered to pay John George Swan £7 13s. under a judgment summons by March 20. POLICE CHARGES. (Before Mr. W. G, Riddell, S.M.) RAILWAY CUISINE AND THEFTS. Three separate charges of theft of Government property were preferred against Charles Henry Harris, a railway cook in the employment of the Government. * Tho charges woro:.(l) Theft on March 4, 1913, of tomatoes, apples, fisli, biscuits, tea, plums, pantry towel, and one loin of mutton, the total value being Gs.; (2) theft on December 26, 1912, at Palmerston North, of one tin of kerosene, valued at 45.; (3) theft between February 1 and 28, 1913, at Wellington, of a quantity of butter, sugar, bacon, tea, one tablecloth, and serviette, the total value being 15s. id. Chief Detective Broberg stated that accused- had committed the thefts during the time that he was working on the trains. Nothing was known regarding lvis previous character.

Accused pleaded guilty on all charges, and on the first was fined 10s., in default seven days' imprisonment. On the other two charges he was convictcd and ordered to come up for sentenco when called. THE THIEF AND THE SETTLER. John Derrick pleaded guilty on a charge of insobriety, but not guilty on a charge of; theft of . .£1 in money, the property of Jeremiah O'Donoghue, settler, of Morrinswille. . 'fho evidence went to show that O'Donoghue, when on a trip to AYellington, visited a hotel in the vicinity of Courtenay Place, where he met accused. He alleged that accused placed his hands in his vest pocket and took a sovereign Accuscd denied the charge, but did liol give evidence. His 'Worship decided to convict, but deferred sentence until this morning. THREA TENING BEHAVIOUR. George Henry Clark and David Taft were jointly charged at the Magistrate's Court yesterday with having occasioned a breach of (he peace, by using threatenill!; behaviour in Ctislomhouso Quay. Tho offenders were each fined 20s. in default seven days' imprisonment. OTHER POLICE CASES. Walter Henry Lister was deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond, having been found on private premises without lawful excuse. Evidence was given by tho occupier of the hotiso (William Young), who stated that lie had found accused oil Tiis premises at night. His Worship imposed a sentence of three months' imprisonment. Martin Dolly, who was arrested for insobriety 011 Fobruary 2G last, but who had been unable to appear until yesterday owing to having to bo medically treated, was ordered to pay, 17s. Cd. medical expenses. \ ! ARBITRATION. SOME RESERVED JUDGMENTS. COMPENSATION CASE Reserved judgment has been delivered by tho Court of Arbitration in the compensation case in which Hip plaintiff was Mary Elien Hocquard, married woman, of Wellington, and the defendants were Thos. Ballingcr and Co., Ltd., Wellington. Mr. P. J. O'Regan' appeared for Mrs. Hocriunrd, while Mr. T. Young appeared for the defendants (Thomas Ballinger and Co.). From tho facts set out it appeared that .

Mrs. Hooquard was a sißter of Arthur I utlnoy, who was killed by an accident occurring on October 31, 1912, arising out ot tho courso of his employment with Balhnger and Co. Mrs. liocquard, who had been separated from her husband lor several years, had been keeping hous# » ti'r ner brothers, l'hreo of these— Arthur, Albert, and Joseph—had been regularly paying ,£1 per week, and tho other brother, Thomas, hod been an occasional resident in "Wellington, and had contributed accordingly. Tho family lived in a house in Bhicher Avenue, owned by eight members of the family, and valued at .£OTS (Government valuation), Since the accident, Mrs. liocquard s brothers, Albert and Joseph, had married, and the remaining brother allowed her 25*. per week. She claimed the sum of .£156 as reasonable compensation.

The defence was a general denial of any liability, the contention being that plaintiff was either a housekeeper or a landlady. ■[ n wyins judgment the Court pointed out that Mrs.- Hocquard (the plaintiff) was not being maintained by her husband ft? *. i 10 was 110 Presumption of law that she was dependent on his earnincs. ±or some years before her brother's death sho was provided with board and clothing out of tho money supplied to her by her brothers. This fact was, the Court considered, sufficient to establish a case of partial dependency and the case was not ° no ] n which the plaintiff should be treated either as a paid housekeeper or as the keeper of aboardinghouse. Sho could not be treated as a housekeeper, for she had no fixed remuneration.' Nor could she be treated as tho keeper of a boardinghouse, for the house in which sho and- her brothers lived, was their joint property and no other persons were admitted as lodgers. Tho Court was there*?h° of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation, but tho case was not one in which a large sum should bo awarded. Judgment was given for plaintiff for ,£25 with costs .£5 55., and witnesses' expenses. PAY OF APPRENTICES. Reserved judgment was also given in connection with an appeal from the magistrates decision in tho case of tho Inspector of Awards v. Alcock and Co., the question being whether a breach of award d been committed in regard to wnrres paid to an apprentico. Tho case was first brought in December last. In tho Lower Court Mr. D. Carmody (Inspector of Awards) said that the apprentice was now in his third year during which the rate of pay was 13s. ner week. Before the commencement of his i ?" Gar had lost six weeks' work through absence. The employers had told tho boy that he would have to complete uio six weeks before getting his rise from os. to 135., and this had been carried out. Mr. Carmody contended that tno boy had" been paid 4s. per week less during these six weeks than the award stipulated.

i .? ca 9 oc k> for the defendant, argued that the inspector was proceeding against defendant in the terms of an award which had been superseded, and that under tho new award tho defendants' action waa permissible. The magistrate held that a breach had boon committed and imposed a fine of ,£1 From this decision Alcock.and Co. appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law.

Court, in reviewing the arguments put forward, held that contracts of apprenticeship made under tho old award must.bo carried out as if that award wero still in force. To that extent it lmd not been superseded by the new award. Tho Court upheld the magistrate's view that a breach had been committed and the appeal was therefore, dismissed.