Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 101, 3 May 1904, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

NEW PLYMOUTH, MONDAY, may a. (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) OIVII, BUSINESS. Monteath and Clarke v. Wilson.— Mr Quilliam (Covett and Quilliam) for plaintilfs. Judgment by default for 8s and costs 7s. May v. Hook.—Claim 15s Od. Mr Roy (Hoy and Wilson) for plaintiff. Judgnient by default for amount claimed and costs ss. O. K. Hoby v. 11. Irvine.—Claim £2 lis. Judgnient for plaintiff by default for amount, claimed, and costs 18s. Harbour Hoard v. Bnrleyman.— Claim £3 13s ltd. Judgment for plaintiff be default for amount claimed and costs 9s.

-Harbour Board v. M. Bolger. Claim ill! lilsl Judgment for amount claimed and costs. Miller anil Cleveland v. Brennan.— Claim £0 1.7s (id. Mi' Fit/.herbert for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed and coßts El Its Od. Harbour Board v. (J. Davison.— Claim £& 3s Id. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs 56.

Harbour Board v. Hair,—Judgment for amount claimed, £8 7s, and 22s Od costs.

Harbour Hoard v. 0. J. Wlily.Claim £2 2s 7d. Judgment for this amount and 8s costs.

Monteath and Clarke v. C. Callaghan.—Claim £3. Judgment given for amount claimed and I.os costs. Sash and Door Factory v. S. Ha* mon. Judgment for amount claimed IBs 6d, and costs ss.

Sash and Boor Factory v. Chambers.—Claim £4 10s 4d. Judgment for full claim and costs ss. Sash and Door Factory v. Florence Jennins. —Mr Quilliam for plaintiff. Mr Roy for defendant. Mr Roy contended that the plaint note was not in order, as it did not state the locality of tho company's head oflice.

Mr Quilliam admitted that tho objection was fatal. The summons had been prepared by ths secretary of tho company.

A nonsuit was granted without costs.

Thos, Bransgrove v. Now Plymouth Fire Brigade.—Adjourned for a week on defendant's application. K. L. Hamerton v, M, Hyland,— Claim £5 19s 6d. Judgment summons. There was no appearance of judgment debtor, though this was a case adjourned for three months at his request. Mr Gray appeared for tho defendant, and asked for an order to be made.

His Worship thought tlie granting of orders by default was a thine of tho past. Mr Gray replied that under the amended legislation oi 1900 it had been necessary for the plaintiff to prove that tho debtor had tho money in his possession, but the amended Act of 1903 threw tho onus of proof on tho debtor.

The Mugistrato was not sure that the Act of 1903 was retrospective. This judgment was obtained in February, 1903, and tho Act did not come into operation until November. Mr Gray contended that this amendment placed the parties on the same position as under th) Act of 1874.

His Worship said this was a point for argument, and adjourned tho case for a week. R. M. Weeks v. Williamson.-Claim of 18s, balance of wages claim of £1 18s. Mr Weston for plaintiff,and Mr Hutchen for defendant.

Tho plaintiff stated that he had been paid a cheque for £1 for loading barges at Waitara, but he should have received £1 18s, being ten shillings for each of three trips on the barges and eight shillings for loading.

In answer to Mr Ilutchen, plaintiff said the cheque ho received was for £l. Mr Hutchen produced tho block of a cheque payable to Weeks for £1 His Worship remarked that plaintill had mado a serious allegation against the defendant. Two witnesses, Messrs Howell and McKay, w«;o examined far tho plainfill. For the defence it was stated that Weeks had not carried out his agreement to work the barges for tho full time that the Ayrshire was lying in tho roadstead, but had left without notice to take up more remunerative employment on a merry-go-round at the Waitara regatta. As the defendant was bound by his contract to load tho vessel he had to employ another man at increased wages. He had deducted the amount of this payment from plaintiff's wages with the latter's consent. Mr Williamson produced the cheqtio for £1 Bs, which had been given to plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr Weston, defendant said ho told Weeks ho must not go aboard the ship, as tho New 'Zealand Shipping Company's officers objected to him, alleging i>e had endeavoured to Instigate a strike aboard on a previous occasion. Defendant then said "All right, I'll load this ship for' you, but no more."

The Magistrate said in his opinion thoro was no, contract, but merely nn agreement to hire the man for loading a barge. .Judgment would be for plaintiff for. 10s. Mr Weston applied for costs for the adjournment from last week. Mr Ilutchen objected. Costs allowed were : Court foes 10s, two witnaß.se!) 8s Od.