MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2189, 19 September 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

WEDNESDAY; SEPTEMBER 18. (Before Mr. IV. A. Barton, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Henry Morse was charged with having been found drunk, and was convicted, and fined the sum of. £l, costs 2s, medical ex-

ponses'£l 3s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. iProcuring Liquor.—Ou a furtlior jiharge of prpeuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, Homy Alorso was convicted and fined £lO, costs 2s, in default 3 months’ imprisonment, this sentence to be concurrent with the former sentence. Alleged Theft.—Peter Cleary was charged , with tho theft of one bottle of Thorne's, whisky, valued at ss, the property of George B. Oman, licensee of tlio British Empire Hotel. Detection Aladdorn conducted the prosecution. George Brown Oman deposed that lie saw tho accused at tlio British Empire hotel on Aionday evening. As tho accused was leaving witness noticed that his coat was bulged out as if he were concealing something. Witness asked tlio barman whether ho had missed anything, and the barman replied■ that lie liad missed a bottlo of whisky. Witness then followed accused, who .crossed the street and. disappeared in an alloyway. Witness went up the alleyway, and found the bottle of whisky on the ground. He 'returned and told the accused not to enter his liouso again, After hearing tho evidence of tlio barman and Constable Irwin, His Worship said that in liis opinion there was not the least doubt as the accused’s guilt, and as there was a previous conviction against him he would inflict a substantial penalty. Accused was convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment in Napier gaol.

Taylor v. Taylor.—His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows:—The. plaintiff' was engaged hy the defendant as a French polisher, for a term of six months commencing from the 20th day of June 1907. The remuneration agreed upon was Is 3d per hour. On the day plaintiff entered defendant’s service tlio question of overtime arose, and it was then agreed between the parties that tlio rate of pay lor overtime should bo the same as for. ordinary • hours, viz., Is 3d per hour. It is admitted that plaintiff worked overtime for about three weeks, viz. till about the lltli. of July when defendant told him that he did not wish him -to work any more overtime. Plaintiff says: —“On the 27th August I was sent by, the defendant to work at Alacky, Logan’s warehouse, and defendant- - cam© there at about half past 3 in the afternoon, and I asked him if lie would pay me Is 6d an hour overtime, and defendant refused and I told him that I would not work lor Is 3d an hour overtime, and lie said that I could come to liis shop and get my money.” The defendant's evidence is entirely contradictory of plaintiff’s as to what took place at Alacky,, Logan’s on the 27tli. August, 1907. He says:—“l sent plaintiff to work at Alacky, Logan’s on the"27th. August. I showed him what to do and went away returning in about .an hour, when plaintiff called me aside and said: ‘I want more money for this job.’ I said: ‘lf. you are not satisfied, go back to my shop.’ He said: ‘I will not work any more, I will come and get my money.’ Defendant swears positively that plaintiff’s demand for nioro money was for ordinary hours, and that no reference whatever was made to overtime.” I fail to see any reason why the plaintiff should have mentioned the question of overtime on the 27th. August as he had not worked any overtime for nearly seven weeks and had not boon asked by the defendant to do any since about the lltli. of July, and that being so I am inclined to believe tho defend-, ant’s evidence, when he says that the demand by the plaintiff for more money had reference to ordinary hours and not to overtime. The evidence is very contradictory, there being very little testimony outside tho parties to guide me in my judgment, but looking at tho surrounding circumstances tho probabilities appear to me to bo in favor of defendant’s version of what took place between the parties on the 27th. day of August 1-907, and that being so judgment • will bo for defendant. Costs totalling £2 8s were allowed.