LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1810, 25 July 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. THEATRICAL MEN GO TO LAW. "THE JIUTTEKFJ,IKS." AND CONCERT AGENT'S CLAIM. In their ilittings to and fro upon the fnce of tho earth, the Butterflies Comal,v Concert Co., or at least their manager, Besm to have alighted in tha dim forest of the law. Yesterday Dr. M'Arthur gave decision in a case in which Fred M'Crea, concert agent, had proceeded against C. R. Bailey (manager of "Tho Butterflies"), claiming JiG2 10s. 3d. as balance duo for certain paper and printed goods; also ,£2O 17s. representing 10 per cent. <,f the RTOSS proceed') of "The Butterflies' " season in Wellington, from Juno 23 to 28, inclusive. "The Butterflies'" manager counterclaimed for a refund of certain sums paid in error, including ,£3O ss. lOd. for limelight, .£2O 12s. 4-d. for wrappers, <£0 for engagement of extra players for orchestra, and .£G3 os. fid. as proportion of tho gross receipts unlawfully retained by plaintiff. The total amount of the counter-claim was •C 122 IBs. Bd. His Worship considered plaintiff was entitled to .£4G lis. Cd. for printing, and •G2D 17s. lOd. of the gross proceeds (less J!10 deducted in Auckland); in all .fGG 12s. 4d. With regard to the counter-claim filed by "Tho Butterflies'" manager, his Worship stated that a refund of the amount paid for limelight could not bo entertained; that ,£2O could be allowed for wrappers; that .£9 was owing to defendant in connection with tho Auckland orchestra; and that JIG 3 os. Gd. was duo as refund on 10 per cent, of the gross prooecds. Judgment -was therefore declared as follows:—For plaintiff on the claim, .EGO 12s. 4<1.; for defendant on tho counter-claim, «C 92 os. Gd. Costs were fixed as follow:—For plaintiff, .£ll 45.; for defendant, ,£6 13s. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for defendant, and Mr. A. Dunn for plaintiff.

TERMINATED ENGAGEMENT. Reserved judgment was delivered in the case of Alfred Montague Alexander v. the Hawke's Bay Fruitgrowers' Company, Ltd. Plaintiff had been employed as a canvasser by the company, aud lie claimed .£6 12s. 8(1. expenses and commission, and .£SO as damages for wrongful termination of his engagement. The Bench held that plaintiff was an agent, not a servant, and o« such his engagement could be terminated at any time. Ht was not entitled to damages in this respect, but only to the amount of JBO 12s. Bd., which had been paid into Court by the defendant company. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers i'or the defendant company.

COUNCIL'S WORK & AWARD. Proceedings were taken (before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) against tho City Corporation by the Inspector of Awards (Mr. it. T. Bailey) to recover penalties for alleged breaches of tho Wellington Carpenters' and Joiners' award. The alleged breaches consisted in tho employment of one Maisey and one Body to perform carpenters' work during the period March 18 to April 8, 1913, and failure to pay the carpenters' award rate of Is. 4kl. per hour. Mr. Bailey, for the prosecution, said that the City Corporation was building septic tanks at ICaiwarra, and among the men employed were two, Body and Maisey. The work that these men wero engaged upon was, the Department submitted, carpenters' work, and whether this was so, within tho meaning of the award, was tho chief question at issuo. It would probably bo claimed by the City Council that the work was tinibermen's work, but tlio Department would call evidence to controvert this view. Mr. _J. O'Shea appeared for the City Council. Hearing at this stage was adjourned.

UNDEFENDED DEBTOES. Judgment for the plaintiff by default was given in the following cases:—E. W. Alills and Co. v. Henry Giles. .£3 175., costs 10s.; Frederick S. Bolton v. E. J. Headland, X 7 Gs., costs XI 3s. Gd.; P. B. Eussell and Co., Ltd., v. A. C. Noble, X 8 lis. Bd., costs XI 3s. Gd.; Hat Box Mercery Co. v. A. B. Corrigan, X 2 Gs. 3d., costs 10s.; Public Trustee v. Eobert Agnow MacC'allum, X 2, costs 155.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. James Duncan and Hons, costs X 2 10s.; same v. Adaiu Aikman, XS ss. Gd., costs XI 9s. Gd.; Forcl and Co. v.'William M'Endoe, costs 55.; James Bell v. G. Scrimgcour, X 7 IG=., costs 235. Gd.; Thomas Ward v. John Eeginald Wclsby, XlB, costs XI lis. Gd.; 11. C. Gibbons and Co. v. Isaac N<len, Jtt 7s. Gd., costs 10s.; Vacuum Oil Co. v. \y. T. May, X 2 Is. 3d., costs 10s.; same v. A. Busby, XI Bs. 5d., costs 55.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Mitchell and llayner, XGI lis. lid., costs X 4 os. Gd.; W. Wiggins, Ltd., v. G. Bennett, Xll Is., costs XI 10s. Gd.; saaue v. Chn's. Vincent, XI 3s. Id., costs 10s. JUDGMENT DEBTOES. G. W. Banks was ordered to pay Xl 5 7s. Id. to Huteheson, Wilson, and Co., by August 7. Patrick Arnold was ordered to pay X 3 10s. lid: to 'John Allan by August 7. Ernest G. Osborn was ordered to pay X 25 9s. to Elizabeth Eachael Gregory by August 7.

POLICE LIST. THE DEFENCE THAT FAILED. ■ SUNDAY BEEE CASE. Beserved decision was given by Mr. W. G. Eiddell in a case in which Daniel Tlios. M'Carthy was charged with unlawfully supplying liquor to Michael O'Brien on Sunday, June 22. In the proceedings it had been indicated that on the Sunday in question O'Brien called at the Boyal Tiger Hotel, ostensibly to inquire after the health of his child, and while there, M'Carthy handed him a bottle of beer that had been purchased the night before for O'Brien by his wife, and left at the hotel. "Counsel for the defence," said his Worship, "referred to some decisions dealing with similar questions,, but, in my opinion, these decisions are not applicable, with the exception of one—an unreported decision, M'Kenzio v. Spear— and even that case I do not consider to be conclusive in favour of the defendant. Section 205 of the Licensing Act, 1908, states that where (in any licensed premises) any person other than the licensee supplies liquor to any person at a time when such person is not entitled lawfully to bo supplied, he shall bo liable 'to a fine not exceeding XlO. O'Brien was not lawfully entitled to be supplied with liquor at the time when defendant handed the bottle to him. The section was absolutely prohibitive. Defendant would be convicted and lined 205., and costs 135., in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment." INSOBEIETT. Two first offenders, who were charged with insobriety, were convicted and discharged. Another was lined 10s.