MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1793, 4 July 1913, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

INJURED WORKERS. POINT OF INTEREST COMES UP. DELAYS IN SUCH CASIiS. It sometimes happens that, when a walorMUß worker meets with accident anil goes to Court to claim damages, a long procedure involving recourse to a higher Court is necessary. The matter came up tor notice when Dr. A. ii'Artuur, b.AI., was delivering juugment lit a case in which — Crawiord (a waterside worker) claimed from the Union bteam toliip Company ilui) as damages, on. account oi injury. The statement of claim indicated that plaintiff had been hurt while engaged in discharging. cargo lrorn tho s.s. •AioKoia oil February i, iSlii. A barrel fell from tho slings, and struck him on the head and bouy. iNegligence in respect .to appliances was attributed to tho Union Company. Alternatively, tho plaintiff claimed compensation under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act, 1908, assessed lor the period of his disablement.

His Worship stated, inter alia, that ho had caret ally considered the evidence, and was of opinion that the accident had not been due to faulty appliances, but to faulty slinging on the part of a fellowservant. After quoting the lav providing for this aspect of the case, his. Worship awarded plaintiff .£SO. In addressing the Bench, Mr. T. M. Wilford (who appeared for the Union Company) said that it might be of some effect—now that Parliament was sitting— if his Worship would'state his opinion on magistrates having the right, to assess and fix the amount payable to workers under- the Workers Compensation Act, .where an injury occurred. When a worker was injured, the compensation was to be assessed, and an elaborate procedure to a higher Court was necessary. It appeared to him that it would bo the right thing, and the cheaper thing, when a worker .was injured, if a quick assessment could be settled by the magistrate, and the. reference made to him simply for, that assessment. As it was, a delay of weeks and weeks took place beforo the worker could obtain such assessment. His Worship said that ho would consider the matter. A WALL CALENDAR. A small case occupied tho attention of Mr. W. G. Eiddell, when tho Expert Publicity Company, advertising agents, sued H. Spear, optician, for the sum of 12s. 6d.,' for advertising space on the Trocadero Hotel wall calendar. Mr. Fitzgibbon appeared for the plaintiif, while the defendant conducted his own case, Tho defence was that the advertisement was not up to specifications. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for 10s., with costs. THE FIT OF A SUIT. A suit which was alleged to be a misfit was the bone of contention in a civil case in which Herman Heimann. sued John Volkmann for <£G Bs. sd. for goods supplied. The defendant paid £\ Bs. sd. into Court, and disputed the balance. Mr. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dunn for the defendant. Mr. Eiddell, S.M., gave judgment for .£3 10s., plus the amount paid into Court, remarking that the defendant had kept the suit for,several months, and worn it once or twice before he refused payment, on the ground that the suit was a misfit. Costs to the amount of J6l 16s. were allowed. UNREPRESENTED DEBTORS. Judgment for plaintiffs by. default was given in the following undefended cases: —Joseph Andrews ,v. Mary Hewson, . ,£2 lis., costs 10s.; Kirkcaldie and Stains v. H. Byrn, ,£l7 Is. Id., costs £I.los. 6d.; Veitch and Allan v. John Helliher, .23 12s. Bd., costs 135.; D.I.C. v. Mrs. Mary Hewson, .£9 3s. Bd., costs .£l3s. Gd.; Kirkcaldie and Stains v. Fred. Broadley Farmer; .£2B lis.' Gd., costs M 145.; J. Godber and Co., Ltd.,. v. G. H. W. Dixon, .62 ss. lid., costs 10s.; Commercial Agency v. S. Black, .£9 Is. 9d., costs .£1 ss. Gd.; D.I.C. v. Heber Brown, 1 \£l Os. 10d.', costs lis.; N.Z. Investment, Mortgage, and Deposit Co. v. Herbert Francis, ,£54 17s. 9d., costs '£i Os. 3d.; E. Amderson and Co., Ltd.,'v. 0. Bonwick, £7 75., costs £1 3s.' 6d.; Kirkcaldio and Stains v. Norms>n Jaggar, .£3 Os. Bd., costs 10s.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., S - . Mrs. A. Prentice, ,£26 12s. 3d., costs £3; F. J. Caterer v. E. Adams, .£l3 10s. 6d., costs 30s. 6d.; Frank M'Parland v. Win. Delaney, 195., costs-.£l 4s. Gd.; M. Robertson v. Robt. Glarkson, <£G3 2s. Bd., costs £i Is. 6d.; J. W. Wallace and Co. v. E H. Claridge, ,£3 45., costs 55.; E. J. Proud v. E. Luttrell, «£'3 17s. Gd., costs lis.; "New Zealand Times" v. F. Davis, £2 Is. 7d., costs lis.; H. 0. Wilton v. E. Stanley, jjl 7s. Id., costs 75.; D.I.C. 7. 0. Robinson, £2 3s. 7d, costs 7s; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. James Toms, .£1 6s. 3d., costs Bs.; Robt. Martin, Ltd., v. Launder and Co., £2 4s. Gd., costs 10s.; Alfred Lindsay v. Geo. M'Gregor, £1 4s. Gd., costs .£1 3s. Gd.; Welsbach Light Co. v. Harry Hill, «£lO lis., costs £2 os. 6d.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ■ James Eapley was ordered to pay JGI7 15s. to the Empire Loan aad Discount Co. by July 17. B. Goodwin was ordered to pay W. Wiggins, Ltd., £118s. 6d. John Thomas M'Kelvie was ordered to pay Folk Cohen £2 lis. before July 17. • POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell,' S.M.) Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., heard the police cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Tor using objectionable language, Eose Fraser was fined 403., with the option of spending seven days in gaol. Henry Francis' M'llroy, who was represented by Mr. P. Jackson, was Temanded tilL July 9 ori a charge of being a rogue and a vagabond, who consorted with reputed thieves. Bail was allowed in the sum of ,£lO. John Bobinson was convicted and discharged for insobriety, but forassaulting James Hall- was fined 205., in default three days' imprisonment. Two first offenders were convicted for insobriety.