MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20049, 14 December 1928, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) APPRENTICE’S CLAIM. The heaing of the case in which - Nelson Blackburn proceeded against i Smith and Smith, Ltd., claiming £lB7 j 4s, on the grounds that he had not j been taught the trade of a stained glass j worker as stated in his deed of apprenj ticeship, was continued yesterday after--1 noon. After the counsel had addressed the court His Worship said that the assessment of damages in this case was not an easy one at all. It was so mde- | finite in some particulars that it was i not the simple issue put before the j court in the opening—that the plaintiff would have required eighteen months for training, and at the expiration of that period he could obtain £7 per week. The position, now that they had the evidence before the court, was quite different. Mr Brock stated that ho could have given tuition, if work had been avaiable, for twelve or eighteen months. That did not mean that the plaintiff would have been given tuition in stained glass work and nothing else, but that he would have been given tuition in stained glass work from time to time. Mr Brock said that two or three weeks would be sufficient to qualify plaintiff in the mechanical work of stained glass. There appeared to bo a misconception as to what was involved under the apprenticeship in this ! case. The training provided training in leadlight and stained glass It was j really an apprenticeship dealing with a trade, whereas the stained glass business was an art. and could only bo acquired after long years of practice ! and study. It was obvious that nothing like tiie amount claimed could be ( allowed. His Worship said ho would suggest that the parties might confer - and see if some arrangement could be made to give the plaintiff further teaching in the mechanical part of the stained glass business to enable him to qualify himself to become a more export worker than he was at the present time. Ho thought such a procedure would be in the interests of the plaintiff and the best solution of the position. Mr White said the difficulty was that Blackburn no longer worked for the firm. Subsequently Mr White asked that the case bo adjourned to Tuesday, and His Worship agreed. DISPUTED PAYMENT. The balance of an account, £4, for meat supplied formed the grounds on which James Bain proceeded against [ George Barclay. Mr 6. T. Baylee appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. Mr Baylee said that at the time the delendant left Ravensbourne he owed Bain a sum of £4 3s 9d. He had been billed on several occasions, and he had then paid, 3s 9d. The defendant was asked for the balance, and ho said he had come into the shop and left the money on the counter. Nobody was in tho shop at the time. The parties had shops close together at Ravensbourne. James- Bain, jun., butcher, Ravensbourue. said that the account was handed to the defendant, and he said ho had paid it on the day ho had left Ravensbourne to live in town. George Barclay, grocer, Raveusbournc, said ho and his family had dealt with the Bains for thirty years. Before leaving for Ravensbourne he had gone across to the Baius’s shop and had given Dick Bain £4, and told him to give it to his father. Dick Bain said his father was not in, and that fie would give it to him when he returned. That was on November 7, 1927. The next time he heard about the matter was in February, 1928, when he was handed an account for £4. He then considered he owed only a balance of 3s 9d. Witness gave evidence regarding correspondence which had taken place between film and the Bains. Tho plaintiff had put the collecting of tho account into the hands of an agency. He had not said that he had given the money to young Bain before, because ho did not desire to create any trouble with young Bain. The plaintiff had dealt with him for many years. He would not suggest that the plaintiff wa.s wilfully trying to boat him for £4 In giving his decision, Jiis Worship stated that tho onus was on the defendant to show that ho had paid this amouut, and he had certainly not done so. His explanation that he had paid the money to young Dick Bain was the first time lie had made this statement. This was inconsistent with the letter he had written to Bsin, sen., in which he had stated that “whoever was in the shop, it was not you.” The defendant now gave the explanation that when he wrote in these terms he well knew it was Dick Bain whom he paid. Tho defendant wished him to believe that, although there were strained relations octween the parties, he was so tender ol the feelings of young Bain that he did not say it was him who received tho money. Clearly, in view of that, and defendant’s failure to produce a receipt, he could not satisfy him that the sum had been paid. Judgment would be for £4, with costs. BUILDER’S CLAIM. The next case was one in which Arthur Herbert Brown, builder, claimed £3O from Frederick William Wcdlakc, that amount being the balance of the purchase money on a house situate in Surrey street, the property of the defendant. Mr W. Ward appeared for the plaintiff and Mr E. J Anderson for the defendant. Mr Ward said that tins defendant had purchased the property from Brown, and the sale had been settled with the exception of £2O until the legal responsibility regarding the drains had been settled. Arthui Herbert Brown, builder, stated that he had not told Wcdlakc that the drains on the property were according to the Drainage Board regulations He did not say anything to Wcdlakc about the stormwater discharging on to the ground. It was a builder’s job to give proper drainage if the sewers were available. The defendant said ho had inspected the place while Brown was building it. Brown had told him that the house was drained to regulation. If Brown put in a proper drainage system he would pay over the £2O. He bought an unfinished house, and expected _ it to be finished. He did not make inquiries about the drain before he purchased, but he made them afterwards, and he communicated with the Drainage Board. The board said that the drainage was not according to regulation. Counsel addressed the court on the question of law, 1 Mr Anderson contending that, in view of the nature of the contract, there must be au implication in law that Brown was to < give the defendant a completed dwelling house. That obviously implied that tho drainage system should be complete, both as regarded foul and stormwater drainage. Mr Ward maintained that there was no implication of any kind, as stated by defendant’s counsel, that there should be a complete system of drainage on the sale of any piece of land. Ho contended that this was’ a sale of freehold and not a building concern. His Worship said he must confess that his sympathies were entirely with thcxlefendant, and lie also thought he ought have his decision on the law. The defendant stated that the matter of drains was discussed, and that Brown assured him that they were ac-

cording to regulation. That was disputed by Brown, but apart from that what they had to regard was tho subject matter of the agreement. It was quite true that there was no implied warranty in an ordinary sale of property. Ho had, however, to consider the actual subject matter. The case was different where a house was sold in a locality where no provision was made for stormwater drainage. The position in this case was that ilia owner was building this house for sale, and that the stormwater sewer was in the course of being put in. Before the time of the completion of the sale the property could actually have been joined up with the stormwater dram. It was quite obvious that Wedlake cnotemplatod purchasing a house with the stormwater and foul sewers put ni, and that was a reasonable implication from the memorandum of sale. In the circumstances he was clearly of opinion that there was such an implication, and that Brown could only contradict that position by expressly stipulating that he was not to he held liable for the connecting up of the stormwater drain, although he had connected the foul sower drain. Judgment would be for the defendant.