MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 20 June 1929, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JUXK 20tli. (Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) DEBT CASES. T. Uobinson (Mr Sellers) v. A. J. , millips, judment summons £3l 4s 2d. No order made. s LICENSING ACT. The police charged two. residents with being unlawfully on licensed premises (Pioneer Hotel). One to pay costs 16s, the other being fined £1 and costs 10s. 'l'lie police charged A. E. Gilman, licensee of the Pioneer Hotel (Mr Murdoch) with selling liquor to a person under 21 years; with selling and exposing liquor for sale during prontinted hours. Mr Murdoch pleaded not guilty to the two first chhrges and guilty to the latter charge. Sergt. King withdrew the two charges. Fined 40s and costs 10s. On a charge of procuring liquor while prohibited three local residents were convicted. One was lined 20s and costs ,10s and the other two were fined 5s and costs 10s each. • BOROUGH BYE-LAWS. Borough Inspector (.Mr Park) charged T. L. Banks with driving a motor car at an excessive speed at a street intersection, and with failure to give warning of his direction. Defendant did not appear. Fined 5s and costs 10s with counsel’s fee £1 Is on each charge DEFENDED CASE. James Haines (Mr Murdoch) v. William Freitas (Mr McCarthy) claim for wages £36. Plaintiff gave evidence that he was engaged by William Freitas at the garage in Sewell St., and worked according to the statement of claim. Freitas had a cousin working with him, who went bankrupt. William Freitas engaged witness. To Mr McCarthy-—He was 20) years old. He was engaged in repairing cars. He had applied to defendant for payment. Freitas s had never denied liability lor witness’s, claim.

Peter Stephens, draper, gave evidence that defendant obtained credit from witness, claiming he had a garage and was running taxis.

Annie Haines gave evidence she was the mother of plaintiff.] Her son at first worked foi; both the*.Freitas, and then for W. Freitas. Witness applied to W..Freitas for payment of her son’s wages and he promised to pay on several occasions, when he got certain money that was coming to mm. For the defence, Air McCarthy claimed the defendant was only a wages man.

William Freitas, the defendam, gave evidence that he had never engaged the plaintiff for any work. He was working for Freitas Bros, in 1925-26. He was engaged by Frank Freitas and Joe Freitas. TV ltnoss was a driver. TYas net paid his wages. He got nothing. Witness took his orders from Frank Freitas. The first claim made to witness was from Ah Naylor. Never spoke to Mrs Haines at all. Wrote to Naylor and stated he did not owe the claim. To Air Murdoch; Haines and Airs Haines were not telling the truth. Haines never worked for witness. i Frank Freitas (father of defendant), sawmiller at Hokitika, gave evidence that he had purchased the Allan Taxis from AY. Jeffries. He engaged his son to look after the business. He had never engaged Haines. Witness and bis brother signed the documents. To Air Murdoch: He owed nothing to Renton for petrol. He had not tried to collect any of the partnership accounts. He could not give any reason why George Freitas when bankrupt, should acknowledge that Haines debt was a correct one.

His Worship in giving judgment said there was no doubt £36 was due to Haines. The whole weight of the evidence was that William Freitas was a partner with George Freitas and that the business was run in their interest, and while this was being done the wages claim accrued. Judgment for plaintiff for £3O, and costs £2s 2s, solicitor’s fee £4 3s, witnesses costs £l. A f AINTEN A NCE.

In a claim for maintenance, a wife succeeded in her claim for separation, maintenance and guardianship of two children. £2 per week granted with custody of two children, £3 3s solicitor’s fee and £1 witness, being also allowed.