MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 April 1932, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY CASES. A VARIETY OF CHARGES. , There was a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Hokitika this morning, before Mr W, Meldrum, S.M, Judgment by Default. Judgment, for plaintiff by default was given in the case of "VVm. Robinson v. Mary Ann Freitas, £l4 7s lid, with costs £2 14s.

Kumara Storekeeper’s Complaint. In a judgment summons case, S. M. Case, a storekeeper, at Kumara, sought to recover the • sum of £3 6s bd from M. Drummond. Drummond said he was a married man with four children, an<j was earning £4 a week. He said the reason wny he-had not paid any or the amount owing was due to the fact that he had a serious illness in the house. He had made an offer of £1 a month, and was still prepared to. pay it. Plaintiff: Ho came into my shop, walked behind the counter and useu threats. The Magistrate to defendant: Are you still prepared to pay the ill monthly ?—Yes. The Magistrate made an order to this effect. Breaches of By-laws. 'CI li. Txutlirey costs for riding a cycle on the footpath. On a similar charge lv. Shannon was ulso fined 5s and costs, Eric Pierson was charged with rid nig a bicycle on the footpath at Kumum, and was fined os and costs. Mary Louden was charged with allowing cattle to wander in a public place at Kumara, and was fined 5s and costs.

Failure to Pay Levy. E. M. Neilson, of Ross, was charged on five counts,, with failing to pay the unemployment levy. The inspector said that defendant appeared to be in a good position to pay the levy as he was m fairly regular employment. The Magistrate said it appeared that defendant had paid one levy, and the case was adjourned for confirmation. Five charges, on the same matter, were brought against H. D. Gardiner, a farmer of Ross. The Inspector said that defendant, when questioned by the police, had paid the money into court. Defendant was fined 5s on th© first charge, and ordered to pay costs on the remaining charges.

A. E. Hackell, was similarly charged on one count, but pleaded not guilty, saying that it had been paid. The Inspector said lie had written to defendant, who denied having received it. The ‘lnspector:- But I have received a letter from you?— No. AY ell it. is from somebody acting on authority.—No.

The letter was produced, signed by Mrs Hackell, junr., and defendant said that the letter was his son’s. Defendant maintained his ignorance of the fact that letters had been sent to him on the matter.

The Alagistrate; The Post Office do not notify you when the levy' is paid, The Inspector—No. Defendant said that he had written to the Inspector upon receiving the summons, pointing out that he had paid the levy, and also pointing out flie injustice of being dragged to the Court, and losing a day's work. The reason why he had not paid it before was because lie had been in hospital ami had other accounts to meet. The ALvristra.tci: You should have go+ exemption.

Defendant was ordered to pay costs,

Employer Before Court

A charge ,of failing to deduct the unemployment levy Prom wages was preferred against H. J. AlcMulUui, hotelkeeper, of Ross. Ho was fined 10s and costs. Breach of Maintenance Order. H. Turnbull was charged with a breach of his maintenance order, hut tiie case was adjourned till the next sitting. Story of a Saw. Carl Ilende (Mr Murdoch) sought to recover the sum ol £1 15s from George Cooper and George. Hunt,

Air Murdoch said that a pit saw and outfit was loaned to defendants for a specific job, and defendants had delayed the return of the outfit- Plaintiff had requested that the tools be returned, and iha-d received an offer of 35s by plaintiffs which he had accepted. Later the outfit was returned to him in a bad state .of repair, and plaintiff had to pay the cost of the transport.

Plaintiff entered the box and enlarged upon the facts as outlined his counsel. Witness wa s then cross-examined by counsel for the defence. (Mr Ekock) and also by Mr Murdoch. The defendant, Hunt, a winchman, employed by the Public Works Department, said that he was working on wages at the time that the saw was borrowed by Cooper. Defendant said that the saw had 'been borrowed at the suggestion of the Public Works Department's foreman, and he (witness) did not know what arrangement was made. The reason why the saw was kept so long was that defendants intended to return it in person, but when the time went on it was returned by transport. Hunt, inspecting the saw which was produced in Court, denied that it was in bad condition when it was returned. He had no personal interest in the s aw > as he was an employee to the Department, who had .suggested its procuration, and recommended its return. Corroborative evidence was also given by the other defendant, Cooper, who said that he had borrowed the saw, telling Mr Hende that it was for the Public Works.

The Magistrate said the saw apparently was lent as a convenience, to be returned when the job was done. It was not returned for 13 months, and then in poor order. It was up to the borrowers to keep it in good order. It seemed to him that some damage had been done, and he would give judgment for plaintiff For 17s 6d and costs £3 3s.