MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17686, 25 July 1919, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

» TnnasDA.y, July 24. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases.— Judgment wiuj giyon for plainfcitfs by default iu the following cases : —iodd Bros. tuid. Uo. v. John O. Sheddan (Waipiataj, claim 14s 6d, balance of an accouut rendered (costs ss); Patersou and Barr v. Join C Paget (Gore), claim £4 7s 3d, for hardware goods supplied (costs 10s); W. Harris and Son v. C Kagor, claiin £2 15s, for goods supplied (costs IDe); Waitaki Dairy Company v. Charles Behmedes (Teinuka), claim £3 IDs sd, for goods supplied (costs 17s). Engagement of a Barman.—The inspector of awards proceeded against John Morrison, licensee of the European Hotel, to recover the sum of £10 as a penalty for a breach of the Dtuiedin Hotel Workers' award for having engaged one J. Hair as a barman without, in the first instance, having mado an application to the secretary of the union to supply him with the required worker.— Mr F. V. Sanderson_ (for the inspector of awards) said that at the time of the offence the defendant was a party' to the Dunedin hotel workers' award. On May 8 he engaged a barman without making application to the secrotary of the union" for a worker.— Mr F. G-. Duncan, who pleaded guilty on behalf of the defendant, said that Mr Morrison had gone oat of town, and on May 3 the barman walked out and left his employment. When Mr Morrison returned to town on May 6 he understood from Mrs Morrison that she had communicated with the secretary of the union and that Mr M'Ewen had, been unable to obtain a man. In the meantime Mair had been recommended ae a thoroughly reliable man, and he was also & member of the union.—The Magistrate: It appears that the defendant entirely overlooked the award.—Mr Duncan: No, I cannot say that he did that.—The Magistrate: Then he ignored it altogether, and that only makes his offence the worse. —Judgment was given for a penalty of £2, with costs (6s). Excess of Apprentices.—The inspector of awards claimed £10 from Joseph Sparrow and Sons as a penalty for a breach of the engineers' award, in that between January 6 and April 12 they employed apprentices in the fitting branch of the engineering trade in excess of the proportion provided for by the award. There was also a further claim for employing an apprentice ironmoulder at work other than moulding, thereby failing to teach him the trade ot ./moulding.—Mr Browett prosecuted.—Mr J. C. Stephens, who appeared for the defendants, said he understood that Mr Browett was prepared to withdraw the charge in regard to the moulding apprentice if he pleaded guilty to the other charge, and that was what he proposed to do. Mr Stephens added that the award did not make clear what the proportion of apprentices should be in each 'branch of the trade. —Mr Browett said that the defendant firm had overstepped the mark, and he had at last been forced to take action.—The Magistrate imposed a penalty of £4, with witness's expenses (6s). Land Agents' Commission.—Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton claimed from Mary Emma Drummond the sum of £7, being commission at the rate of 5 per cent, on the sale of a property which realised £140. — Mr F. B. Adams appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Garth Gallaway for the defendant.—The point at issue involved the status of the casual country representative of a firm of land salesmen. A man named Lawton, who, Mr Adams affirmed, was acting as agent for Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton, introduced the purchaser (a Mr Munro) to the seller of the property, which is situated at Romahapa. Mr Munro subsequently called on Mr M'Kenzie in Dunedin, and after one or two interviews he bought the place. The question was whether Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton brought about the sale, and counsel contended that they did. On January 7 Mrs Munro wrote to Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton revoking their authority, but this was subsequent to the interviews with Mr Munro himself. Mr Adams handed into court a lengthy file of correspondence.—The first witness called was Mr M'Kenzie, who gave evidence respecting his knowledge of the negotiations and the engagement of Mr Lawton as agent.— Charles Munro, farmer and labourer, said he had recently purchased a property from Mrs Drummond at Romahapa. He had signed the agreement, of Bale on January 17. The first he had heard of the property being for sale was from Mr Lawton, who said ho had received particulars from Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, /and Winton. He came to town on January 8 and saw Mr M'Kenzie, but Drummond's property was not discussed on that occasion; it was only mentioned.—To Mr Gallaway: Witness did not know Mr Lawton as a dealer in land, nor did. he know that ho represented Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton. Mr Lawton did not introduce him to the Drummonds. Although he had signed the contract on January 17, a small deposit had been paid on January 9.—The evidence of Peter Lawton closed the case for the plaintiffs.—Mary Emma Drummond, the defendant, said she placed the property in the hands of Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton about 18 months ago. Mr Munro, the ultimate purchaser, visited the place on Bovefal occasions, the last time being on January 7, when he said he had an idea of buying the property.. On the same afternoon she wrote to Messrs Tamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton withdrawing the property from their hands. Mr Munro had never at any time_ mentioned the matter of agents to her.—Evidence was also given by James Drummond, the defendant's husband.—Foi the defence. Mr Gallaway contended that when Munro called on the Drummonds they did not know that Lawton was an agent Proceeding, he argued that Lawton was carrying on the business of a land agent and should, therefore, be licensed. He contended that unless such people were licensed no one would know throughout the country when he sold a property whether he was liable for commisison or not. If anyone was entitled to a commission in the present instance it was Lawton, and as ho had no license he could not claim a commission.—Mr Adams said that Lawton was merely the agent of Messrs Tamblyn M'Kenzie, and Winton, and could not be said to be carrying on the business of a land agent. He was nothing more nor less than a "soout," and the practice was one . which was perfectly well recognised. Messrs ' lamblyn, M'Kenzie, and Winton made a ! satisfactory arrangement on behalf of Mrs Drummond, and through that arrangement a sale was effected.—His Worship sraw judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, with solicitor's fee, witnesses' expenses,' and costs totalling £5. Laundry Worker's Injury.—Thomas Froggiitt panned from Susannah Fre w the sum of i>2s as damages for injuries received through a piece of flying glass, and £1 6s special damages for medical attendance' In the alternative the plaintiff claimed threp weeks wages. Mr CaJvert, jun., appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr John MacGregor for the defendant. Mr Culvert said a piece of glass had been left lying on the top of a box or cupboard, and it was believed that the vibration of the engine had caused it to foil on a revolving machine r£ er -° lt J ., broke 1 a Piece struck the plaintiff in the eye. Negligence was alleged in the leaving of the glass where it was — Evidence was given by Thomas Frogratt the plamt,ff.-Mr .MacGregor said that in cases of this sort it was necessary to prove knowledge on the part of the defendant The plaintiff had admitted that as far as he was aware Mrs Frew know nothing about the glass, and if that was so there could have been no negligence on her part —The defendant, in evidence, said that when the plamtift was injured she told him that ho could either go to her own doctor or to the Hospital, and she would moot all the expenses. The plaintiff had seen her some time, later, when he appeared to be under the influence of drink. He asked her for some money which was owing, and thk was paid .later.—ln reply to his Worship .witness said she was quite prepared to pay the medical expenses which were daim«*d After some further evidence his Wonmin Possession of a House.-In the c i nf