MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2413, 19 March 1915, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THEATRICAL DISPUTE AN ADVANCE AGENT'S CLAIM Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. James Matheson, an' advance agent, represented by Mr. P. W. • Putnam, sought to recover from Reginald Roberts and Claude Bantook, operatic artists, carrying on business under the style of the Florence Young Co.. represented by Mr. P. W. Jackson, the sum of £29 13s. Bd., made up of expenses £6 17s. 9d., wages for two weeks £14,' wages for one week in lieu of notice £7, fare from Wellington to Auckland .£1 15s. lid. In tho alternative the sum of £20 17s. 9d. 1 was claimed. The plaintiff gave credit for the sum of £10 paid on account, thus reducing the claim to £19 13s. Bd. The statement of claim was altered in various » particulars during the hearing. 2 In his evidence plaintiff stated that when he joined the firm they were running in conjunction with Messrs. Linley and Stevenson. The salary was never definitely fixed at £7 per week, but he took it that, he got t'he same as from Linley and Stevenson. They paid £5 per week, and reduced a private debt by £2 per week. He suggested that the company had not been doing good business, and this had something to do with complaints made. John Hopkins, theatrical agent, and • for about ten years an advance agent, said that 'he considered the defendants very good performers in the profession. The advance salary hef considered would be fair in their case was £8 to £10 per week; fluctuating from £8. Some agents got as much as £15. Witness's highest salary had been £10, and his lowest £7 as an advanco agent. It jdepended, in a degree, on the ability of the man. Walter 'Fuller, theatrical proprietor, thought that a salary of £5 to £7 should be paid for an advance agent. For the defence it was contended that there were only two points in dispute: the amount of wages to be paid, and the question of the £7 in lieu of notice. Defendants contended that the salary should be £5 per week, and they had paid into Court that amount. They wished to be quite fair to the plaintiff, but they thought they were en--gaging him at £5. The £7 in liou of notice could not be upheld, it was contended. for plaintiff knew that the tour finished \in Wellington. Defendants, ' said.Mr. Jackson, had paid £9 10s. into Court, which they held was fair. Reginald Roberts gave" evidence that he thought plaintiff was receiving £5 per week. He was not worth more to the company, and had not given entire satisfaction. He had only been engaged to do the advance work for Wellington, and was not entitled to a week's notice. ' After further evidence judgment was given for plaintiff for £16 195., less £5 paid'on account, leaving balance of £11 j 175., costs £3 lis., less amount paid - into Court. POLICE CASES. I Michael Costelloi who had pleaded guilty to t'he theft of £1 7s. from a young soldier, and who was remanded m order to allow , him to help the police to find the money, came up for sentence. Inspector Hendrey stated that the man, although he had offered to tell where the money was if let go when he was caught, had since denied all knowledge of the. matter. He had sponged on the young soldier for the night, and then stole his money. The Magistrate imposed a sentence I of three months' imprisonment . John Alfred Pryor and Geo, Henry j Brunnell, two young men who were found asleep early yesterday morning in the yard of Messrs. Thompson, Lewis and Co., pleaded guilty to the charge that they were rogues and vagabonds, but as there was nothing else against them, they were. severely cautioned and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Elizabeth Musgrave was fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment for , drunkenness; and eight first offenders were dealt with in t'he usual manner. c Charles Harvey, charged with having murdered a Chinaman in Wellington on , September 12, 1914, was further remanded till this morning. 8