LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1835, 22 August 1913, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

LOVER COURT. HOUSE LOCKED ON TENANT. LANDLORD WRONG. DECISION IN TORY ST. CASE. Quito a good deal of interest centred oil what decision the magistrate might (jive in a case between landlord, and tenant, ill which a houso in Tory Street iras iockcd on a'ironian and Jiw children, and tlicir furniturd put out in the yard. The cafe was heard before Dr. M'Arthur, on August H, and, on broad wading, Boomed, to disolo.se a rather pathetio side. Tho case was one in .which Francis Gerard Alderton, labourer, of Wellington, sued Edward Ellis, dealer, of Tory Streot, Wellington, for .£2O damages, llhlo plaint was that on July 14 last plaintiff and' Mrs. Alderton and family were residing in a dwelling-house as EEis's tenants, and Ellis was alleged to havo illegally entered tho house ojid forcibly ejected tho family. It, was. also alleged that he caused plaintiff's furniture and chattels to be put out in the yard, exposed to the weather.

What Mrs. Alderton Said.. In giving evidence (<it the ihearin# on August 11), Mrs. Alderton stated that sho had only been in the house three weeks, and the first weok's rent had bee® paid in advance. For tlie other two weeks 6ho had been in arrears. While Bhe was ongaged' in hanging out washing Ellis called and asked her for the rpnt. Sho roplied that she had not got it. With tihat til® defendant whistled, and a man (said to be a bailiff) came in. Despite her protestations, Ellis and) his-companion entered tlio houso and took out every stick of furniture. Everything, including the curtains and tho wet clothes hanging on tho line, were deposited cm the garden. Defendant then looked up the premises, and, taking tho key, walked away. Witness was then left outside with her two children, whom she stated wero unwell. A neighbour offered tho children a home for the night, and witnoss then went in search of her husband, who worked on

thie wharves. Heavy rain fell during the night, and when she and- her husband returned in the morning much of tho furnituro had been damaged. Forks and spoons and a gold brooch were missing. The Line of Defence. '. The defondant counter-claimed for the sum of Jil Bs., for rent due, -and the feature of the defence of the action was that the Court had no jurisdiction in regard to the case stated by the plaintiff Alderton. What the Maflistrate Found. In giving HTs decision, Dr. M'Arthur stated that 110 had reviewed the law upon tho case, and had- decided that the Court had jurisdiction. Continuing, his Worship said:—"ln the present cose the tenant was in possession, and tho landlord turned her out. It was tho landlord's duty under the circumstances to have come to the Magistrate's Court and entered o plaint for recovery of possession of tho tenement." On this ground judgmont was given for plaintiff i'or £5 damages, and for the landlord on tho counter-claim of jil Bs. for rent. Costs were allowed in both the claim anil iht coiuitej'-claim. Mr. F. Koliy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. Kennedy for the defendant. TRADE UNION CASE.

A case camo before the Court yfsterday, when the Bench was asked for a decision as to tho right of ' builders' labourers engaged in demolishing scaffolds to receive the same rate of pay as is required to bo paid to labourers constructing scaffolds. , 'Bhe point was brought about by the action of the Wellington Building Trades Labourers' Union, who proceeded against Muir and Rose, contractors, to recover a penalty of .£lO for an alleged breach, of the award. _ Mr. D. M. Find!ay lappeaxed for the union, and was supported by Mr. E. -Kennedy (secretary of the union). (Mr. J. E. Fitzgibbon represented the defendant, and Mr. W. Grenfell watohed proceedings on behalf of tho Builders' Association. His Worship gave judgment for tho defendants, with costs. 111 giving his decision, his Worship remarked that ho did not consider it nooessary to reserve judgment, as ho was satisfied that tho only reasonable construction to bo placed upon tho clauses was that submitted by tho

defenoe. He-further said that ho was pleased to know that it was almost a general rule among employers to pay deserving men moro than tho rates stipulated for in the award, and ho thought that df ho, were to decide otherwise than ho did in, this case, it might only tend to iniluence employers to pay the mini,mum rato only. FOR WAGES. ■

Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., Abraham Frederiak Jones, carpenter, claimed to recover from E. Dyer, cabinetmaker, tho sum of £2 lis. Bd., being wages and overtime duo ito plaintiff. After evidence, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for full amount, aud allowed costs amounting to XI Bs. 6d. Mr. Dickson appoared for plaintiff, and Mr. Putman i'or defondant. DEFAULT DEBTORS. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., in tlie following cases:—Fordo und Co/v. H. P. Guppy, IGs., costs 55.; D.I.C. v. J. Tullocli, £7 ICs., costs 235. Gd.; H. E. Geddis and Co. v. Tai Hokcta, JB3 7s. 9d., costs 195.; C. Pratt and Co. v. William A. Burton, i!2l 7s. Bd., costs J!2 145.; J. J. Niven and Co., Ltd., v. Robort Pook, £13 Us. 2d., coats i!l 10s. fid.; Commercial Agency v. J. Hamilton and Co., .£2B Bs. Id., costs £2 195.; M'Gratli and Willis v. J. G. Blackwell, XIO 6s. Gd., costs Jil 10s. Gd.; Spencer G. Radford v.. William John Hogan, £2 17s. 9d., costs 55.; samo v. Alexander Sutherland, •£•! 55., costs 55.; A. D. Kennedy and Co., Ltd., v. A. Jones, il3 18s., costs -El lis. Gd.; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Mrs. A. Jackson, .81 55., costs 55.; samo v. Edgar H. Claridge, ,£3 0?. 4d., costs 10s.; Commercial Agency v. Mrs. Kathleen Lee, £11 Is. 10d., costs £1 10s. Gd.; E, W. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. Horton Bros., .£l6 19s. Id., costs XI 10s. Gd.; Commercial Agency v. C. TJddstrom, Is. Id., cosJts 10s.; J. Keir v. George Shamoy, XI 6s. 9d., costs 55.; Hutcnoson, Wdlson, and Co., v. Whiteman and Hare, 23 155., costs £6 16s.

XOd.; Commercial Agency v. Count Von liome, X 62 3s. 6d., costs £i 65.; W. Wigpins, Ltd.. v. W. Harkett, X 6 10s., costs 2Ss. Gd.; W.F.C.A., Ltd., v. Edith Gibson, .£1 Gs., costs 69.; Commercial Agency v. Frank Bennett, .£7 18s. Bd., costs XI 3s. Gd.; D.I.C. v. M. Wheeler,' .EG Bs. lid., costs XI 3s. 6d.; Commercial Agency v. W. D. Fulton, .£3 7s. 7d., costs 15s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Frank Stackly-Jones was ordered to pnv XI ss. to Alexander Henderson l>cforo September 1, in default seven days' imprisonment. POLICE SIDE.

William Edwnrd Hastio was charged with assaulting and doing grievous bodily harm to a Chinese named Young Wing On. Mr. P. H. Putman appeared for the accused, who was remanded till August 27, on the application of Chief-De-tectivo Brobcrg, bail being allowed in the sum of X 2.5. For insobriety, James Blako was fined 203., in default'three dajs' imprisonment. Sis first offenders Were leniently dealt with. JUVENILE COURT. Two juvenile offenders were dealt with by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. Oris, aged nine years, was charged with tho theft, of a handkerchief and tho sum of Gd. Ho was .discharged with a caution. Tho other, aged 13$ years, was convicted of stealing a saddle valued at X 2, and wns ordered to como up for sontenw when called on.