LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1998, 4 March 1914, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. CONDUCT OF AN AIMED MAN WOMAN TERRORISED. THE TARANAKISTREET CASE. Tho revolver sensation in Taranaki' Street was ■ investigated in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. >AV. G. Riddell, S.M. Tho central figure in it—John AVilliam Wilson—pleaded guilty to having committed an aggravated assault on Harriet Smith. ■ / Inspector Heiidrey stated that accused ' had been a boarder at Mrs. Smith's premises until recently, but owing to certain conduct he had been told to quit. On Monday ■ night ho returned to airs. Smith's shop. iS'lio was the only persoji at home at the time, and, being apprehonsivo of tho man,..6he attempted to run out. Wilson thereupon caught her round the neck and presented a revolver. Ho was sober at tho time, but his statement to the police hud beeu that ho did not know what ho was doing. "He is either mentally defective or a cowardly blofcKguard," remarked tho inspectoral conclusion* . j ' Wilson was remanded for sentence until March 10, in order that he may be medically examined.

ANOTHER REVOLVER CHARGE. John Dobley, who was represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, was remanded until to-day on three charges, viz., (1) insobriety, (2) assaulting Patrick James Murphy, and (3) with being an idle and disorderly person in that he was found by night armed with a revoh er. • According to tho polico : evidence, Dooley was under the influence of liquor oa Lambton Quay on Monday eight,- and ho had presented a revolver at Murphy. A crowd collected, and Dooley ran off and boarded.a tram. He was afterwards arrested, however, with the revolver in his possession. ■ The man was a discharged steward, and had been about to ■take up work in tho country. '■ WARLIKE WOMEN. Mary Johnston,, alias Smith, pleaded guilty to a clfarge of/insobriety, biit not guilty when charged with breaking a window valued at 2e. Gd., tho property of May Sidon. May Sidon stated that accused had como to her house on Monday afternoon in an intoxicated state. / • / His Worship: Did tho defendant break a window? •■■■',■ : ':

, Witness: Yea. ' - - Defendant: It's a lie. I never broke a window.

His Worship entered a conviction on the first charge, and on the second offenco ho fined accused 55., and ordered her to pay the cost of the damage, done, 2s. Gd. /

Rose Fraser pleaded guilty to chargee of drunkenness and to breaking three windows, valued at 7s. 6d., tho property of Sidon. On the first charge she was fined 20s: On the second count she was ordered to pay the cost of the damage done, i , ■ . '

' INSOBRIETY. For insobriety, Mary.. Smith was made the , subject of "a prohibition:'order, arid was fined 40s. On similar charges, !Alary- Johnston, John M'Callum, John Graham, : aud'Thos." .O'Brien iivero each ;fined lps. 'were fined , 'ss. 'each."' ■'" '" •" v ~r'' , ' ■; ,

U:': ■- -. JUVENILE; COURT,.}: ] . ,; 'Mr. W.VG. Riddell, S.M.,''presided at •a sitting'of. the Juvenile Court, yesterday. A'miiior was committed to! the Wellington' Receiving; Home,, and; the step-father \was ordered to pay 55.; per i'week , towards its maiu'tenance. . ; . ••'

'V . ■"'' CIVIL BUSINESS; ! i: ! ■ '■ ■' ■ ' i " "'■ ;■„ ■ , .ENGAGEMENT IN STRIKE ;TIME.' A case which had some relation to the recent industrial -turmp.il came, before Mr. ,AV. G. Rid.deU.S.M., .yesterday, when the Inspector of Awards (Rowland T. Bailey) proceeded against Meyer and Illingworth, builders, to recover two penalties of £10. each, ; for two breaches of the ' Building Trades Labourers' Award. The specific gation ,was that- the firm had employed two non-unionists on or about January 14, and had failed to notify the secretary of ■ tho union. v j

Mr. T. S. Weston, who appeared for defendants, admitted that non-union-ists wero employed, but Mr. Meyer, bad been under the. impression that tho Vtwo men whom he engaged had joined the'union on tho day that they started work'. The matter.happened during the strike, and at a time when it was extremely difficult for Mr. Meyer to! get workmen. His clients had . some! big work on hand, and, when the two [men presented themselves for engagement, Mr. Meyer sent them, in company with the foreman of works, to the uniori office. Tho men afterwards returned, and wero engaged. ... ■■' } Tho Inspector of Awards mentioned •that the defendants, had been warned that they were;liable to a fine if they employed non-unionists.

His AVorship imposed a fine of 10s. on each charge. Mr. AVeston then remarked that bringing on cases of the kind was unnecessary pin-pricking on the part of the Department. . ', ■.

The Inspector- of Awards replied that Mr.' Weston probably did not know what the Department was doing in such matters. ' • . '

NON-UNIONIST ENGAGED. The Inspector of Awards also proceeded against J. and A. Wilson, contractors, to recover a of £10, for alleged, breach of the Building Trades Labourers' Award, in that they had employed a , non-unionist on June 2, without notifying the secretary of the union._ After hearing tho evidence, His AVorship imposed a fine of ss.

STRIKE DISLOCATION. Tho Inspector of Awards clnimed to recover from F. Lamberg, contractor, the sum of £10 as'a penalty for a breach of the drivers' award in failing to p'royido seven of his employees with books in which to enter.the number of hours worked daily, and to initial them within 24 hours. . .

Tho Inspector stated that when the menibers of the Drivers' Union went on strike defendant had instructed his foreman to call in all the time books, he being under the impression that • the moment that members of a union ceased work the award under which it worked became null and void. The Department had brought.tho ease on for tho purpose of giving publicity to tho fact that the ; old drivers' award was still in operation., ■ .

Mr. D. Jackson, who appeared for the defendant, ssiid that nfter calling in the time-books, his client had pasted tiirioshns in tho wages books. His AVorship said that under the circumstances ho would dismiss tho case.

OTHER AAVARD CASES. H. Lenhart, a hairdresser, was' fined 10s. for failing to join tho Wellington Hairdressers' Assistants' Industrial Union of AVorkers.

A similar fine was imposed upon A. Cossin, grocer, of Hcrhampore, who Had failed to pay an assistant the rate of wages provided in tho Wellington Grocers' Assistants' Award. ■

RELATIONS WITH A COMPANY. A. G. Turroll, carpenter, formerly of Mangaroa, but now of Palmerston North, claimed from tho Mayniorn Estate, Ltd.', 'carrying on business at Mangaroa as 'sawinillers, the sum of £29 XOs., mado up of £19 10s., as a refund,and £10 general damages. Tho i statement of claim set out that about; June, 1913, tho plaintiff agrt-ed to purchase from the defendant company a section in tho Mayniorn Model Village for £13, on which the defendant'company, was to build a house at a,cost of £100 to £150. The payments for the house wore to extend over a poriod of lii'tceuj years from the date of completion of the building, and tho amount was to be paid for by Instalments. The plaintilf was to receive 'preferenco in employment, and should be employed by the defendant company so long as ho behaved himself, and so long as the company had sufficient work to keep him employed. Defendant had been dismissed without any reasonable and just cause. In pursuanco of the j agreement the plaintilf paid to the defendant company tho sum of £14 10s. on account as purchase money for the section, and £5 on account of tho house, and had also forwarded 10s. to the defendant company, that being tho. balance due.to complete tho purchase money for tho section. This tho defendant had refused, and] still refused, to accept. The plaintilf also claimed that tho defendant had refused to complete tho contract, and still refused to do so, and had also refused to give the defendant a "title to tho land. In consequence of this refusal to givo the plaintiff employment, and for breach of contract, ho claimed damages, and a refund of ■ tho amount paid. It was sot up by Mr. H. F. Von Haast, on behalf of tho company; that tho question of damages for breach of contract for the sale- of land, when tho contract was not in writing, and deponded upon part performanco to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds (which requires all the terms of tho contract to bo in writing) was for a Court having equitable jurisdiction to grant specific performance, and could not, therefore, bo dealt with in tho 'Magistrate's Court. Mr. Von Haast raised a further point that there was only one /contract and that tho question of pernianont employment (which tho plaintiff alleged he had been promised) could not bo dealt with iii tho Lower Court, while tho rest of tho contract was being dealt with by the Supremo Court.

His AVors.ip stated that ho would reserve decision -on the non-suit point raised. Mr J. F. W. Dickson appeared for plaintiff:

KENT FOR GRAZING. .William Hamlin, farmer, proceeded against Janies Oswald, dairyman, claiming £24 10s. for rent of grazing land, duo to, January 26, 1914. The statement sot forth that, some years ago, plaintiff became lessee of certain property at Johnsonville, and, at the time, a man named — Moxham was using it for grazing land, and paying a rent of os. per week. On December 11, 1911, Oswald entoved into tho occupation of tho land in succession to Moxham, and, during March 1912, paid a quarter's rent at tho rato of ss. per week to the .-plaintiff. Sinco that date defendant had not paid anything, but was'still occupying tho land. Plaintiff 'therefore claimed £24 10s. for ront due.

Counsel for defendant (31r. O. Beerej sought to show during his examination of witnesses thjt the defendant had given up tho,land long ago, as it was ,not suitable for grazing' purposes. In evidence the plaintiff . (who was represented by Mr. T. Neavo) stated that defendant's cattle were still grazing on tho land.

His Worship reserved decision. '.';•" '•■; DEFAULT DEBTORS.' ' " '' " Judgnient for plaintiff by defnult was, given in the following undefended cases:—Leh Jenness v. •William H. Hes-ldp,--145., costs 10s.; Georgo Doughty and 00. v. A. Koorey, £9 35., costs £2 10s. 6d.; James A. Doherty v. E. H. Hastio, costs £1 75.; Wliitcombe and Tombs, Ltd., \vW. F. Jones, £1-13s. Id., costs 55.; City Council v. Henry A. Evans, £4 13s. 2d., costs ss:; R. R. Russell and Co., Ltd., v. John H. P. Allen, £12 195., costs £2 Bs. 6d.; William Hoyland and Co. v. Thomas Rapsom and Robert Irvine, £9 95., cost-s £1 35.: 6d.;-Arthur Bolton v. Sarah Johnson, £1 13s. 6d., costs 55.; same v. Patrick Boyle, £2 12s. 7d., costs 10s.; James J. Niven and Co., Ltd., v. Hole Holland, Ltd., £20 os. 3d.,, costs £2 14s. ;Lacry and Co., Ltd., v. E. J. llile, £12, costs 18s.; Frederick George Bolton v. John A. Hagan,.£s 3s. 6d., costs £1 os. 6d.; E. W. Hurstliouse and Co. v. Norman Campbell, £4 195., costs £1; Walter-Reynolds v. George Forbes Henry, £10, costs £1 95.; ' Miramar Borough Council v. James A. "Price, £10 6s. lid., costs £1 10s. 6d.s Stanton and Evans v. E. J. Jones, £14 17s. 9d., costs £1 IGs.; William Allan (trading as- Veitch and Allan) v. Henry A. Wilson, £4 lls. 3d., costs 10s.; Hughes and Cosser v. Bacon's Aerated Water Company, Ltd., £7 lls. 6di, costs £1 3s. 6d.; Hallenstein Bros., Ltd., v. A. D. Walton, £8 9s. lid., costs £1 3s. 6d.

JUDGMENT SUMJIOiSiS. Thomas Tyree was ordered to pay £1 ss. to Henry North on or before March 17. '