MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 238, 2 July 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THEFT OF WHISKY TWENTY-ONE DAYS' IMPRISONMENT Mr. P. V. Frazer, S.M., dealt , with tho'police cases otvesterdny's sitting of the Magistrate's Court. William Gill, at present undergoing a term of imprisonment for theft, pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of a janof whisky, valued at ,£(> os., the property of Levin and Co. Plain-clothes Constable Trickleb-ank stated that he interviewed the accused in the Terrace Gaol, and he there admitted that at Clareville 011 December, 2.'l last he removed a hvo-gallotf jar of whisky I'rom a shed; and hid it amongst somo grass. The whisky had been consigned to a resident of Clarcvillo by the owners. and the' accused had travelled 011 the same train. The whisky ivas recovered the dav aftev it was missed. •

His Worship imposed a sentence of hventy-ono days' imprisonment, cumulative on the present term. The accused was also made the subject of a prohibition.order.

. BREACH OF TIIE PEACJ?; A plea, of l.ot guilty was entered by Tvan Murdock when charged with .using threatening behaviour in Willis Street on Monday. The accused said that he was walking along Willis Street with his sister when some person mado use of objectionable language, and he remonstrated with him. This resulted in blows being struck, and the accused said that lie struck the other man in self-defence. These facts were corroborated by the police, who also stated that tl.e aoms-ed became obstreperous when arrested, and as a result the other man got away. His "Worship entered a conviction and discharged the accused. CELEBRATING PEACE. "I thought you would excuse the occasion owing to the peace celebrations," said Timothy Delaney, when cliajgcdwith drunkenness and 'a breach of _ a .prohibition order. "I had no ii tention of getting booaed yesterday.' His-Worship: I wonder? Accused: I saw; the flags Jiving, and thought they would not mind a bloke having/a few drinks. His Worship decided lo eive-the defendant another chance, and imposed a fine of ■£!! for the breach of the. cider, mid convicted and discharged accused for drunkenness. OTHER CASE'-'. John Lapriak was convisHd and discharged for creating a nuisance in Parish Street. For drunkenness, Daniel Devlin was remanded for medical treatment. One first-offender was fined lfis. and ani'thcr was fined ss. BY-LAW -CASE.S. Arthur Daniel Dineen was convicted and ordered to pay costs is. for l-.'-iving insufficient lights on his motor-car. Richard -Evans was fni,ed r is. and 7s. costs for leaving a motor-car I'nnHer.dsd on Lamblon Quay, and Henry Palmer, similarly charged, was convicted and ordered to pav costs 7s. Hen'-y Gaskin was ii'.iod ss. and /a. costs for having ridden a raotor-cycie. without a light. _ . On a charge of allowing .st.ocK to winder. George Williim JSmws was lined E1 and 7s. costs: Oliver Gardner 30s f.nci 2+s. costs in all. in respect of two charges; and Stephen Sievens w-s crnvicted and ordered t» pav costs <s. In tlio case of Patrick Cavannch. »Im was also charged with allowing flock lo wander. the ranger stated that a-tuallv nn-ie cattle were on th« road than wore mentioned in the information, but ho was unable to impound more than six on one occasion, and-fifteen on tho ,-econd. I.lie defendant said that the cattle had broken through a. fence separating Ills land from' a neighbour's farm, and (hey were then dri v "ii on lo iho road by the neighbours. He had already pan! .£1 17s! fid. damages' to the neighbour, and bad also pajd poundage fees. It.e defendant was liv.i"! .£2, and fls. costs on each of two charges. CIVIL C/MS HOOT OPER.VJ'TVMS' AWARD. (Before Mr. AV. G. Riddell. 8.M.) The Inspector of Awards (Mr. R. Bailey"! proceeded against the Dominion Shoe Factory for a breach of the boot operatives' award. Evidence in support, nf tlio action was given to the effect that on March 18 the engine at the defendant's factory broke down, and in consequence tlio employees were put off for three hours. Two days later the employees worked for Ihree hours in the evening, and wero pnid ordinary rates,

instead of the overtime rate of time and a quarter. The defence was thnt the men had applied to be allowed to work in the evening in order to get in their full time for the week. The defendant company, through their manager, agreed to tile suggestion, and the lost time was made up. ~ The award provided for double time being paid for work done on holidays, but thero was also a provision that employers might- pay employees ordinary rates for holiday, work in the event of ■such work being necessary owing to a breakdown in machinery. The-, award also provided for all time worked over forty-five hours each week to be paid for at overtime rates, and that time lost by "direction of the employer" was to he excluded from the computation of such forty-five hours. Mr. Bailey, submitted that there was no provision in the award which allowed an employer to work an employee overtime without paying the overtime rate. He also contended thnt the case came under the ''direction of employer' clause. For the defence Mr. A. W. Blair said that: thero was an amicable relationship between the employer and employees, and !■•> complaint had been made until the Labour '.Department interfered. It was at the suggestion of the employees that, the'arrangement in regard to work was arrived at, and it was rot the first time that the company had given their employees an opportunity to make up lost time. There was nothing in the award which could prevent such an arrangement being made. Ills Worship said thnt he could not agree with Mr. Bailey that a breakdown m machinery brought an employer within the wording of the section of the award which stated "Time lost under the direction of the employer." The information would be dismissed.

Mr. Bailey said that he had brought the action at the instigation of the Boot Operatives' Union, and it was of. considerable .importance, for the reason that the award was a Dominion one, and came into operation in November, 1918. He asked that costs be fixed, in order that the case might be placed before the Arbitration Court. This was agreed to, and posts of security for appeal were fixed at .£8 Ss.

STORAGE OP FURNITURE CLAIM. A claim for 12s. for storage of furniture was made by Michael O'Connor, of 89 Waripori Street, against Joseph AnKits, driver, of Luxford Street. The contract was not seriously disputed, but the defence suggested that an agreed compromise had been carried out by the Plaintiff. The defendant also objected to the plaintiff holding his goods as security for payment of the claim, and complained that the shed was not a fit place for the storago of goods. The Magistrate found that no damage had been occasioned' through the fault of the plaintiff. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with .£1 Ids. costs. Mr. Barker appeared for i.he plaintiff, and the defendant was unrepresented b.y counsel.

TENEMENT CASES. John William lCnoll was ordered to give up possession of a tenement to J. \V. Easson by July 21, and to pay £1 17s. od. with ,£2 costs. _ J. Moy'es was ordered to deliver up possession of n tenement to John Cunnliffe by July 21. •

CARRIAGE PROPRIETOR'S CLAIM. The hearing of the claim made by A. T. M'Williain, carriage proprietor, against H Morris and C 0.,) undertakers, for rent and cleaning and storage of hearses, was ooncluded before Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M., yesterday. The plaintiff originally claimed for a sum of ,£ll9, but this was reduced to ,£SO, in order to bring the claim under the equittable jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. The plaintiff, in support .of his claim, said that he accepted the storage of the hearses at a remuneration, although tho amount was not fixed. For the defence it was held that there was no such arrangement, and that nothing was payable, as the consideration for taking tho hearses was the work given to the plaintiff' in connection with funerals. Cotinfi;;! for the defence also raised a nonsuit point that when a claim exceeded .£SO Urn excess-could not bo abandoned so as to bring the claim within tho equitable jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court, ilis Worship reserved decision.

Mr. C. B. O'Domiell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant. JUDGMENT BY DJft'AULT, Judgment for plaintiff by default was Kiven by Mr. \\\ (.!. Hiddell, S.M., iu the following undefended eases:—Herb Price v. Margaret Well, 45., costs Bo.< Dominion Clothing Co. v. Whetu 'fauri, .£1 liis. sd„ eosls 195., W. J. Williamson v. •Tuuies Dredge, .til 10s., costs U £l 10s.; Oscar Ilewctt and Co. v. H. E. Anderson, .£2, costs 10"g.; Jenkins Furnishing Co., ].td„ v. Andrews and Hunt, .£24, costs .£2 Ms.; J. E. Evans,' Ltd., v. John Bainbridge, „fcl 10s„ costs 175.; Stewart Timber, Co. v. Richard Whyte, '.£ls 3s. 2d., cost 155.; same v. Thomas Michel, £U 7s. Id., costs iCI 35.; Lazarus Wolfe Balfcinil v. Koso Isabella Ci'ibbs, 10a. 8(1., ctets XI 125.; .Carpenters'' and Joiners' Union v. I'. Barley, <£1 lis! (id., costs Bs.; Messrs. Burch and Co. v. John Bainbridge, i£22 lis. (Id., costs J!2 18s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Roy Manson was ordered to pay J. T. Lewis, Ltd., flio sum Df XlO lis. Cd. by .lulv 15, in default seven days' imprisonment.