MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2690, 9 February 1916, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS COAL WORKERS & THE DALMOIiii In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., delivered his reserved decision in the case in which, the Inspector of Awards (Mr. H. K. Moston) claimed a penalty of £10 from every one of six waterside workers, on the ground that, on December 80 last, they broke the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Agreement by becoming parties to a strike as workers engaged in discharging coal from the' steamer Dalmore. The proceedings were commenced under Section 5 oL the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. and the names of the defendants were: W. Connor, U. Bean, J. La tour, E. Dyson, G. Dumbleton, and J. Stone. They were all represented by Mr. H. F. O'Leary. The facts of the case are well known Op. December 30 the foreman for ths Blackball Coal Company (a party to the agreement mentioned above) engaged the six men to discharge coal from the Dalmore, which arrived under charter to Scales and Co. The rate of pay was Is. Cd. per hour (as per agreement), but the men later demanded 2s. per hour, saying that die coal '■was very - dusty and ' unusually dirty. The employers offered Is. Bd. per hour (rate for trimming bunkers), but this was refused and the men afterwards left the job. Later, when an effort was made to engage another party of men for the unloading operations, objection was made to a foul smell arising from the bilges. The Court waß asked to decide the question as to whether the men had been guilty of taking part in a strike. The Magistrate was of opinion that, on the authority of Gohns v. the Auckland Waterside Industrial Union of Workers, the acts of defendants came within the definition of a strike, as found in Section 5 of the Act, but, as their employers were not parties to the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Agreement, the defendants were merely guilty of a breach of contract and could not be convicted. Tlio informations were therefore dismissed. .UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. Sitting in civil jurisdiction, Mr. W. G. liiddell, S.M., gave judgment by default for the plaintiffs in the following undefended claims:—Public Trustee as -executor of will of the late Sarah Ann Tilsley v. Francis Cooksou, £7 13s. 3d., costs £1 4s. 6d.; P. R. Russell and Co., Ltd., v. J. Houghton, £7 12s. 6d., costs £1 3s, 6d.; Jno Chambers stnd Son, Ltd, v. W. N. Burcher, £32 25., costs £2 145.; Ferguson and Osborn v. W. G. Fraser, £17 Is. 3d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; City Council v. Mitchell's Estate, per Mrs. Jessie B. C. Compton, £13 13s. 6d., costs 18s.; Robert- 'Martin, Ltd., v. Harold Forrest and Son, £32 12s. 7d., costs £2 145.; Wm. Jno. Haines v. Margaret Smith, £3 18s. 9d., costs 10s.; S. Brown, Ltd., v. Mrs. M. Campbell, £1 Is. 9d., costs 55.; J. Boucher and Co., v. Jas. Davies, £3 3s. (id., costs 10s.; Wm. Lawes v. S. Rowberry, £9 ss. 6d., costs £1 6s. Gd.; John Edward Butler, Ltd., v. Arthur Noble, £23 19s. Bd., costs £2 145.; Public Trustee v. Thomas Northcott, £12 7s. 6d., costs £1 10s, Gd.; Joseph Lewis v. W. Mackay, £4, costs 10s.; J. H. Hooper v. Mrs. G. N. Ewing, £200, costs £8 18s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Karl Joseph von Ameln was ordered to pay the National Bank of New Zealand, Ltd., tlio sum of £113 16s. on or before February 22, in default to undorgo three months' imprisonment. NON-SUITED. 11l the case of G. 11. Jenkinson (Inspector of Noxious Weeds) v. T. M. Stevens, of Molosworth Street, a claim of £1 10s., as costs of clearing weeds from a section at Karori, the plaintiff was non-suited, without costs, as there was no proof that the defendant had received the necessary notice. LICENSING CASE. ALLEGED SUNDAY TRADING. Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., dealt with the police oane? ill the Jtßßii.'- , trato'a Court yesterday, Proceedings

were taken against Elizabeth AVhelan (daughter of the liccnsoe of the Alhambra Hotel) for supplying liquor to Constables Colliding and Harvey on Sunday, January 2 last. There were also informations against tho licensee (Honora Whelan), based oil the. same set of circumstances. Inspector Hendrey prosecuted, while Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. In outlining the caac, Inspector Hendrey said tliat the informations (four in number) wero laid under Section ISO of tho Licensing Act. Jt was not suggested tliat the licensee liad anything to do with supplying the liquor, but under the Act, sho was liable to-be prosecuted for what had been, done b.v her . daughter. Constable Patrick Michael Goulding, of Wellington South, stated .that on Sunday, January 2 last, he and Constable Harvey' dressed in khaki clothing and, acting under the directions of Sergeant Kelly, visited the Alhambra Hotel at 5.45 p.m., and asked if tea was ready. They were told by Miss Whelan to wait a few minutes, and wero shown into tho smoke room. Subsequently they wore supplied with drinks —a beer and a long sliandy—and for these witness paid a shilling. On being asked for their names, witness gave liis as Williams, while Harve.v stated that his was Jacobs. Next they had tea, for which fritness paid 35., and finally obtained a flask of whisky for which witness paid eightcenpence. To Mr. Myers: He knew that on the Saturday night. (January 1) a great Inany soldiers had difficulty in obtaining accommodation. He knew also that it was only owing to the kindness of Mrs. Whelan and other hotelkeepers that numbers of these soldiers wero not compelled to walk the streets all night. Witness counted 26 soldiers in the Alhambra Hotel on the Sunday afternoon. and these ho considered were boarders. During the whole time he was in the hotel, witness was not asked if he was a boarder. Evidence was also given by Constable Harvey and Sergeant Kelly. Mr. Myers cross-examined the witnesses, with the object of showing that Miss Whelan had supplied the liquor under the impression that she was dealing with two genuine boarders, and later counsel stated'that this was the line of defence. / Several witnesses for the defence could not be heard in tho time, at the disposal of the Court yesterday, and the further hearing was adjourned until Tuesday next. SOLICITOR FINED. William John Organ, formerly a solicitor in Wellington, but now an officer in camp with the .New Zealand Reinforcements, was charged with failing to have his trust account audited within three months of the year ended March 31,' 1915. The information was laid under tho Law Praotitioners Act, 1913. Mr. V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Solicitor-Gen-eral, while Mr. M. F. Luckie appeared for the defendant. Mr. Luckie, in entering a plea of guilty, said that his client was absent on military service, and unable to got leave_ to attend. As a matter of fact, explained Sir. Luckie, defendant had only been in practice until August, 1914, and, before tho time expired for furnishing his audited report in June, 1915, lie had gone into camp, and entirely overlooked it. The report had now been prepared, and would bo furnished in due course, the delay having been due to the fact that defendant was Hi a difficult position in tho matter of obtaining leave. Counsel submitted that the case was not one whero the maximum penalty of £100 should be imposed. Mr. Meredith said the facts wore practically as stated. The Crown Law Office appreciated Mr. Organ's position, but in addition to this case there were others in other parts of New Zealand, and the rules were so framed under the Act that it was iiupossiblo to differentiate. The Legislature had deemed it necessary to make provision for these audits, and it must;be understood that tho members of the legal profession must comply with them. For this reason the matter could not be looked upon as trivial. The maximum penalty was not asked for, but it was submitted that something more than a nominal penalty should be imposed, as this was the first case of its kind. The Magistrate agreed that Mr. Organ's position had been a difficult one, on account of liis military duties. A ■penalty of £5, with costs 75., was imposed. .MAN WHO REFUSED TO BE ADVISED. Jamos Brown, who on Monday had been ordered to come up for sentence when called upon on a charge of vagrancy, was advised by the Magistrate to return to the country. Instead of taking that advice he allowed himself to fall into the hands of the police on a charge'of using threatening behaviour. When lie appeared in Court on this latter charge Vesterday the Magistrate imposed a light fine, but the prisoner was then called upon to answer for the oharge of. vagrancy, and he was sent to gaol for" three months. _ IMPROPER LANGUAGE., Emmanuel Paul, charged with drunkenness and with using obscene language, was fined £3, in default to undergo a month's imprisonment. In reply to a request that Paul should have time to pay, the Magistrate said: "No, I won't give you time. This obscene language is too rifo altogether." A fireman, named Peter Fay, for using bad language, was fined £2, the alternative in his case being fourteen days' imprisonment. OTHER CASES. John Anderson, who pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, was fined 205., in default to undergo three days' imprisonment. Four first-offending 'inebriates were also dealt with. On a charge of importuning in Majoribanks Street and the neighbouring vi-; cinity, Jessie Pollock was convicted aiidC remanded for sentence for one week.