MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 149, 19 March 1919, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

INTERESTING JUDGMENT

A STOWAWAY'S FARE

Tho liability of a stowaway to a shipping company,. after, having sull'ered imprisonment for the oifence and for failure to pay the fare Tor the reason that ho had undergone a term of imprisonment in default thereof,-was decided in tho Magistrate's-Court yesterday, when. Mr. W. G'. Riddell, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in a unique case in which Michael O'Connor sued the Union Steam Shij) Company for the sum of X2B 14s. Id., being moneys, alleged to have .been taken from the ■plaintiff 1)y the defendant company in August, 1918, and the company had refused to refund, iii full when a demand was made.- The company coun-ter-claimed for the return fnre between Wellington and Sydney (X 0); and for tho sum of Is. Bd.

In the course of his judgment His Worship said that the facts which resulted in the defendant' company -.holding -the lhonevs belonging to pluintili' arose thus: In August, 1018,'plaintilf slowed away on defendant company's steamer Manuka, hound from Wellington to Sydney. Before the vessel reached Sydney plaintiff was discovered and was brought back to Wel-lington,-where he' was subsequently charged in the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, with leaving New Zealand without a permit, contrivry to the War Regulations, and for this offence he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, When discovered on the vessel plaintiff had in his possession X2S lis. Id., which was handed to the purser. Plaintiff was further charged with stowing away on the Manuka, and for this offence he was convicted and ordered to pay XI), the amount of. the fare, in default one month's imprisonment, cumulative on the term of three months already referred to. Plaintiff- did not pay the X 9, and in default was imprisoned for one mouth. The defendant company ndmittedlhat: it held ,£2B 14s. Id., moneys belonging to plaintiff, but it counter-claimed for X 9, tho amount of plaintiff's return fare from Wellington to Sydney, and 4s. Bd. for. goods supplied, and, before action, olfered to pay the amount hold for plaintiff, less theso items, which plainlilf declined.- Plaintiff admitted liability for 4s. Bd., and the balance, Xl 9 9s. 5d., had'been paid • into Court.

His Worship then quoted sections of the Shipping and. Seamen Act. 1908, -Section 108 of which enacted tliad vhe penalty inflicted for travelling without permission should not prejudice tho recovery of any fare payable by the offender. Plaintiff submitted that his position was affected by the Justices of the Pence Act, 1908, Section 243 of which stated that, having been convicted and having paid the whole amount adjudged to be paid, or suffered tUo imprisonment awarded, lie should bo released from all further or other proceedings, civil or criminal, for-the same cause,- except proceedings under an order for restitution of property or its value. Plaintiff' argued that lie. had suffered the imprisonment imposed by tho Court for a breach of Section 118, and that ho was by virtue of Section 243 of the Justices of tho Peace Act, 1008, freed from all further liability to the defendant company. As the charge was one which was preferred in the. interests of the, public, including' the- defendant company,.. His Worship was not satisfied that the evidence, of the part taken in the proceedings by defendant'company amounted to proof that the charge.was instituted on its behalf. The imposition of a pecuniary penalty or a term of imprisonment could not benefit the company, as there was no provision in the Act-'which empowered tho' Court to order itny part of the fine to bo paid'to the defendant company, in whole or part payment of plaintiff's fare. ■Under Section 108 of the Shipping and Seamen' Act, 1908, any penalty'imposed on co'nviction did not relieve tho defendant from liability to pay the fare he had evaded, and it was argued that as Section 118 was silent ns to the civil liability of a convicted defendant the payment of tho fine or the serving of a terra'of imprisonment was n, bar to the recovery of the- fare by the owner of the vessel. 'Defendant argued that Section 243 of the -Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, did not apply, asjjje proceedings' against the'defendant, -were in the nnturo of a charge and" not by. way of information. '; His AVorahip did not consider it necessary to decide this question, as upon the evidence submitted ho was of opinion that plaintiff had failed to prove that the cause of action which resulted in his suffering one month's imprisonment was instituted on behalf of tho defondant company or was the same.cause of action as that.covered by defendant's counter-claim. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for JE9'4s.. Bd. ove- .and above . tho amount. paid into Court, and costs.,£l 10s., and judgment for defendant company, on the counterclaim for ,£9 is. Bd. and costs .£1 4s. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the plaintiff and Mr: P. Levi for tho defendant company. THEATRE ALLEGED OVERCROWDING. Waller E. Fuller, proprietor of His Majesty's Theatre; Coiirtenay' Place,' was proceeded against by tho City Corporation for permitting overcrowding in the theatre contrary to the city by-laws. Mr; J. O'Shon, who prosecuted, stated that tho charges were laid under By-Law 372, which - mtulo offence for the licenseo of any theatre to permit patrons to stand in tho passageways, etc. The by-law was framed to protect the public, and it was necessary that all passages should be kept clear. If crowding were permitted the public would be endangered in case of fire. Evidence was given by the corporation inspectors ns to. tho numbers who woro standing behind tho stalls and dress circlo and in the gallery on certain occasions. In the case of tho gallery' on a. Saturday night'the patrons were sitting- on tho steps and standing in great numbers round the passage-way. Mr. O'Shea said that the practice of permitting patrons to stand had' become more pronounced lately, and tho excuse which had been put forward by some theatre proprietors was that the losses suffered during the epidemic had to bo made up somehow. • For the defence Mr. Young submitted that the by-law was unreasonable. The practice of permitting a certain number of patrons 1.0 stand during the performance- wns allowed in theatres throughout the world. The Magistrate, Mr. .12. Page, S.M.. held that before tho defendant could succeed on his claim that the bylaw was unreasonable he must prove his contention, and he had failed to prove this. His Worship was satisfied that patrons liad been permitted to stand about the pas-sage-ways. Mr. O'Shea said he did not desire that a. heavy penally be inflicted.- The by-law was framed to protect the public and it must be observed. His Worship said that apparently the. fault lay principally with the ushers. Defendant would lie fined ,£3 and costs on the first charge,, and would bo convicted and ordered to pay costs on the other three charges. TENEMENT CASES. In the case of Arthur Eades v. W. O, Smith, a claim for the ■ possession of a tenement, plaintiff 'was nonsuited, but was allowed costs. Mr. R. Collins appeared for I he plaintiff and Mr. 11. O'Leary for the defendant.. The Public Trustee was granted possession of a tenement occupied by William King. The defondant King was ordered to pay X'S. 185... rent overdue. Costs wore allowed plaintiff. CLAIM' FOR A PIANO. A claim for tho recovery of a piano was heard before Mr. W. (i. lfiddell. S.M., when .Elizabeth Wood proceeded iiKaiiist Emilia Christine Dickson, for the 1 recovery .of such instrument. Considerable' evidence was called on both sides, and on conclusion His Worship ordered the return of the piano to plaintiff before .March 25, or tho pajmont ot Kls the assessed value of the instrument. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. 11. VV. Blair for the defendant. .JUIXIMEN'MIY DEFAULT. Mr. W. G. liiddell. S.M.. gave judgment for plaintiff by delimit in the following undeleiidod civil cases: Shnrland and Co., Ltd, v. R. 1. Low. J!l2 -Is.Jd., costs XI 10s. od.; Kenneth Carroll Morpeth v. Albert Islington Exloy, ,£8 lis., costs .£1 Us, (hi.; Hallonstcm Bros, Ltd,

v. G..F, Li.ndegreen,.Xl 9s. (kl., costs fis.; Inglis Tiros, nnd Co., Ltd., v. W. B. Johnson, X2!> 7s. .Id., costs XI 35.; H. .H. Tombs, Ltd'., v. Leonard Ashwin, XI 10s., costs 55.; E. C. Browne nnd Co., Ltd., v. ,T. Fargh, IDs. (Id., costs 55.; Witcombe ami l'vm, Ltd., v. C. M'Lood,,X7 25., costs XI 3a. fid.; .1. Heywor.th v. F. 11. Meyers, .£3 ss. 3d., costs 10s.; W. ,T. Gaudin and Sons v. Bradley and Son, !).v!)d., costs 25.; Bristol Piano Co., Lid., v. Edward Oliver, .£lO 13s. (id., costs .CI 10s. fid.; W. Telford v. W. .). Byrne, X 5 10s., cosls XI 7s. fid.; A. S. Pafcrson and Co., Ltd., v. Daniel Donnelly, .£27 ss. Id., costs JE2 Us. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Bernard Godfrev M'Gipn was ordered to jiay L. T.'Foster X.'> 17s. fid. by weekly instalments of 10s. Henry .Campion was ordered to pay Allan Anderson'XT 4s. 2d.'by April 3, in default three-days' imprisonment. .' .Tim Lee : and Co. was ordered to pay W. 11.. Grove, mid Sons JES7 15s. 3d., by -April-3 or go.to goal for one month. ■ BREACHES OF AWARDS. A penalty of lljs. was inflicted on W. It. Barr. licensee of the City Hotel, who admitted n breach, of the Wellington hotel workers' award by engaging an employee without having made application to the secretary of the union. Mr.. H. T. Bailey, Inspector of Awards, prosecuted. Tn nn action against E. .T.. Stuart, of tho Cricketers' Arms Hotel, for failing to nay a:i emplovee the award rate of wages, Mr. It. T. Bailey, Inspector of Awards, was given judgment for 20s. ■ BY-LAW CASES. Stanley Vivian Croucher was lined 10s. and costs 7s. for leaving a motor-cycle on a public highway without lights. Daniel Chapman, who was represented by Mr. 11. F. O'Loary, pleaded not guilty to a charge of leaving a motor-car on the Parade at Island Bay at nighttime without lights. It appeared that the car had run out of petrol, nnd the lighting of tho car was dependent upon the running of the engine. A line of 10s. and costs was imposed. • . • For permitting the waste-pipe from a bathroom to become insanitary. Emily Spearmnn was fined XI nnd costs 7s. For allowing stock to wander. Bert Cook was fined 10s. and costs 7s. Two similar charges were preferred against .T. .1. I Curtis and Co., who were lined.ss. nnd cosls on one charge and merely ordered to pay costs, 75., on the second count. - POLICE CASES. Before Mr. E. Page. S.M., a fireman belonging to the liner .Zenlamlie. named .Tames William Richardson, was fined XI for disorderly conduct whilst, drunk. On a further charge of using obscene .language he was fined X 3, in default seven 'days' imprisonment. With a list of one hundred and fortvsix previous convictions, Nora Nugent, appeared to charges,of drunkenness and'a breach of her prohibition order. She admitted both charges, and was lined : XI for the breach of her, order and was convicted and discharged for drunkenness. For insobriety two first offenders were fined 10s., and a third was fined ss. •