MAGISTRATES COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 846, 31 May 1910, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yes- J terday. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases:—A. E. Jenks v. Wilson and Hawkins, claim £ll 5 s 4d, costs 15s ; E. E. Reade v. E. W. Wilson, £1 12s, costs ss; Williams v. E. Walsh, costs 30s 6d; George Reay v. James Campbell, £1 9s, costs 13s ; same v. Mrs Dewar, £1 8s 4d, costs ss; same v. Walter Anderson, £2 los 3d, costs 10s; A. Smith v. George Osborne, £1 7s, costs 13s; same v. Yuile, 17s 3d costs only ; George Wright v. Charles Coley, 13s costs only; C. Sorenson v. John Holland, £2 10s 2d, costs 15s; Manawatu Heradd v. E. W. Wilson, £6 16s, costs 18s 6d ; same v. Wilson and Hawkins, £5 15s 6d, costs 18s 6d.

judgment summonses. In the case of A. R. Osborne v. James Campbell, evidence was given by judgment debtor to the effect that his earnings for the past three months had only averaged £2 per week. Corroborative evidence was also given by his employer, and the Magistrate refused to make an order. Walter Anderson, who did not appear, was ordered to pay O. Hermanson ,£5 10s rod forthwith in default six days imprisonment. The order was suspended for 14 days.

A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT. P. Hennessy and Co. proceeded against T. W. Mitchell and Eaing Bros, lor the recovery ot 13s iid for goods supplied to the defendants who were engaged in a draining contract at the Manawatu Heads,

Evidence for the plaintiffs was given by H. Haslett, manager at the time the debt was incurred, to the effect that the account had been opened by the three defendants in their joint names, and all goods ordered had been delivered to their camp. P. J. Hennessy in evidence stated that it was the usual practice of storekeepers when supplying several men engaged on a contract to charge all goods supplied to the firm, and the adjustment of any items for the personal use of one or the other of the contractors was matter for the parties themselves. A defence was filed by T. W. Mitchell, one of the defendants, who in evidence stated that a proportion of the items charged for were for the private use of Laing Bros., and should be paid for by them.

The Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs £2 12s. He said that in a case of this description the individual members of the firm were jointly and severally responsible for the full amount of the account. Mr Mitchell would have to pay the full amount and he could sue Lamg Bros., for the proportion due by them.

BREACH OE FI.AXMILI.ERS’ AWARD.

The Inspector of Awards (W. J. Culver) proceeded against George Green and Co., flaxmillers, to recover the sum of as a penalty for a breach of the Flaxmillers’ Award, in so much as they did neglect, within one month of the coming into operation of the said award, to supply to the secretary of the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Union of Workers, a complete list in writing ot the names and occupation of the persons in their employ covered by this Award. The defendants by letter admitted the breach and stated that the matter had been overlooked.

The Inspector said that it was not a serious offence, but the Department wished to impress on employers that the provision of Award must be observed.

The Magistrate gave judgment for ;£i with costs ss. William Ross and Sou, Ltd., were also proceeded against on a similar charge, and judgment was given tor a like amount. There was another case against this firm for having, from the Ist to 30th of April, had part of the work in or about their llaxmill done by con- y tractors, and failed to stipulate that the said contractors who employ any workers should observe the provisions of the said award so far as the same was applicable to such workers. Mr Culver said that in the case of Messrs Ross and Son, L,td., although the Union had written and asked for the list of employees, they had refused to furnish it. Mr Moore, who appeared for defendants, said that the contracts in question had been running since December, and the new award did not come into force until March, hence the reason why the clause was not inserted in the contract, He considered in any case that it was a paltry matter, being only a technical breach.

The Magistrate said it could hardly be called a paltry matter. The clause in question should be inserted and the employer must see that the contractors pay award rates. Judgment would be given lor £ i with costs ss. FATHER AND SON. James Harper proceeded against his son William to recover the sum of being balance of wages alleged to be due, the return of two rugs and 10s damages for the,retention of same and £1 being value of four chairs alleged to have been broken by defendant. The plaintiff in evidence stated that he was employed by his son at Paiaka for fifty weeks at £1 per week. During the time he was thus employed he received

and the balance was still due. When he went to work for his son he had two rugs and four chairs. The rugs were taken away by his son, who also broke the chairs. The rug produced was not his. William Harper, the defendant, admitted that his father was working for him at £1 a week, and he had during the time he was so employed been paid ,£36. Witness said that his father had asked him to pay several accounts for him, which he had done. These amounted to ns 3d. In the statement of claim his father had charged for two weeks which he was away from work at Christmas. He did not know anything about the rugs claimed for. The rug produced was the only one he had seen in the whare that did not belong to him. In reference to the chairs, witness said that he did break them, but they were broken by his brother John. Evidence was also given by Frank Harper, brother of defendant, who stated that the rug produced belonged to his father. Constable Woods stated that when he served the summons on defendant John Harper was present and admitted breaking the chairs in question. His Worship gave judgment for defendant, and ordered that the rug in question be handed over to plaintiff. a butcher's bill. G. T. Woodroofe proceeded against Mrs L. Carroll to recover the sum of ,£l3 6s gd for meat supplied etc. The defence set up in this case was that the husband was responsible. The plaintiff said that he opened the account in the defendant’s name and she had acknowledged liability. Witness said that had he thought that the husband was responsible he would not have supplied the meat. After hearing the defendant’s evidence in which she admitted liability for certaiu items, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount admitted £7 3s 8d with costs 10s, and solicitor’s fee £ 1 6s.