MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20048, 13 December 1928, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13. (Before Mr J. It. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment by default for, plaintiff (with costs) tvas given in tho following cases:—A. Goodloy and Sons v. Mrs Margaret Sanders, £ll 11s 3d, goods supplied; M'Crackcn and Walls v. J. Phelan (Christchffreh), £1 (is Cd, goods supplied; Commissioner of Taxes v. James Hardie Tucker, 9s, costs only; Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Co., Ltd. v. T. H. Palmer, £7 13s sd, goods supplied; W. A. Pearson y. William Cooper, £2 IDs lid, goods supplied; Jago, Biggs, Ltd. v. Mrs E. A. Beyer, £t) Os Od, goods supplied; S. L. Barnes v. Maria Callaghan (Green Island), £2 2s UJd, goods supplied; James Milne v, William Clark, Is 9d, goods supplied; same v. Robert Bruce Johnstone, 15s 9d, goods supplied; Hugh and G. K. Neill, Ltd. v. W. Fibbcs, £4 4s sd, goods supplied; Electrolux, Ltd. v. Porter Bros. (Milton), £l3, goods supplied. J UDGMENT SUMMONSES. C. M. Braid proceeded against John Smith, who was ordered to pay £2 3s -Id forthwith, or be imprisoned for three days. . Alex. B. I’ainnan* proceeded against John Eahey, claiming £5 5s sd. Defendant was not represented, and stated that he earned 14s 8d per day, but had lost about one month’s work since the order was made in March last. Ho was a widower, and had a daughter, but she was at work. He had lost about £2O in horse racing since March, and said die could not pay his debts. An order was made that he pay the amount due forthwith, or be imprisoned for six days, the warrant to bo suspended so long as he pays by i instalments of £1 per week. I CLAIM BY APPRENTICE. 1 Nelson Blackburn, Jeadlight worker, proceeded against Smith and Smith, Ltd., for a breach of a deed of apprenticeship. Plaintiff claimed that if fie had been taught the trade of a stained glass worker bo would have been able to earn £7 per week, but as a leadligbt worker ho was able to earn j only £4 T2s. He claimed £lB7 4s as (’ damages, it being seventy-eight weeks’, work at £2 Bs. It was claimed that it would take him seventy-eight weeks to attain a stage of efficiency reasonably necessary for the work of a stained glass worker. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. C. Stephens for the defendant company. Mr White said that this was a claim for breach of contract under a deed of apprenticeship made between plaintiff and his father on the one part and Smith and Smith on the other part. The deed of apprenticeship provided that plaintiff was to bo taught the business of leadligbt and stained glass work. The defendant had duly instructed plaintiff in the leadligbt part of the business, but almost entirely failed to give any instruction in stained glass work. Tho position was that plaintiff was employed by Smith and Smith as a message boy for some tn'o or three years an,d then a vacancy occurred in the leadligbt and stained glass department. He applied for tho position and was given employment there. Shortly afterwards the deed of apprenticeship was drawn up and was signed by the parties. Ho found after ho had teen working there some time that he was receiving leadligbt work only. After about a year he thought, he should bo given tuition in the other, branch of the business and lie com- > plained to Mr Brock, who managed: that department, and asked that he; should bo given some instruction in * stained glass work. Mr Brock said■ that lie would have to see those in authority about it, and be was told he would lie instructed later on. Mr Brock, himself, gave him some draw-) ings, but apart from that lie was given, no instruction whatever. After some time lie again complained that bo was receiving no instruction in stained, glass work. He was then given two, or throe weeks’ instruction in the' stained glass part of tho business.; Apart from those two or three weeks be received no instruction whatever in| that part of the business, and it was; on that ground that the action Mas founded. Some time later Mr Brock loft tho firm and there was nobody to instruct him in the work. Ho -was told it was not necessary for him to know; tho stained glass work, and it was impossible for him to bo taught it. Another man was taken on, but ho was an export in Jeadlight work, not in ( stained glass work. Evidence was given by plaintiffs as to his work at Smith and Smith’s, and the trade lie was taught. Mr Stephens said ho admitted quite frankly that plaintiff had not got all instruction lie might have had,, but it was owing to circumstances over ivhich the defendant company had no control. At the sa,rac time ho was making a great deal more of it than, lie ivas justified in doing. He had been given , tuition in leadligbt work . sufficient to qualify him for earning a living.’ He would be able to carq! up to £5 per week. Norton Oram, manager for Smith! ( and Smith, gave evidence as to tboj stained glass trade, which, he said, was; practically defunct. The revision ofthe Customs tariff allowed stained glass! to enter New Zealand free of dutyJ "Witness also testified as to the work.; of plaintiff. | John William Brock, decorative artist,) gave export evidence as to the tjualifica-] tions of a stained glass worker, and the( stages an apprentice would have to go. through. Some parts of the trade could) not bo learned in New Zealand.) Plaintiff had bad instruction in cor-l tain parts of the trade. Ho could guarantee to give Blackburn sufficient mechanical knowledge in two or three weeks to enable him to go on, if ha was prepared to work himself. Tho higher grade of staining was more or less a secret process, and had been; so for about 100 years. An apprentice) : could not learn the higher class of; work in four years. 11 he had to earn Jus living as a stained glass worker,; .. he would starve. Ju answer to Mr '■ White, witness said Blackburn should have had more instruction than he had had. It would have taken one and a-, half to two years to teach plaintiff the work lie should have learned. 1 (Proceeding.) j