MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 232, 19 February 1913, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

IT.- usual weekly sitting of the M agist it c's Court was held yesterday, vvlien a. nr :ilht of civil eases were dealt with by . •!'. A. Crookc, S.M. ■IUDtaiKXT BY DKI'.UT.T. .; ulgnient by default was given in the fo ! .owing undefended oases:-- AY. <!. K.iiciiy (.Mr. C. 11. Weston) v. Te Whiti. claim* £>l Is, eosts £3 lis; Hiillenstein ]\roi. (.Mr. J). jlulcliei!) v. Alargaret Warner, claim £;i 2s 2d (18s). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. On the application of Mr. F. Wilson Thos. P. Smith was ordered to pay the sum of £4 Os 4d within a week, or in default 5 days' imprisonment. The Westport Coal Company (Mr. 13. Uuteheii) applied for an order against 11. F. Callaghan for £:) 4s. After hearing the evidence of defendant, the Magistrate declined to make an order. A PAIR OF BOOTS. , Valentine J3ilski was sued by llallenstein JJros., for whom Mr. J). 1 kitchen appeared, for £1 Is, being the value of a pair of boots, which defendant was alleged to have bought. It. llill-Johnson, an employee of Messrs Hfillensticn Bros., deposed that he had served defendant with a pair of boots in 1!U1. but that those were not the boots that formed the subject of the present action. Witness reiterated this when cross-examined by defendant, who denied that he had been in the shop. IT. J. Wells, manager of the firm, produced his day-book, which gave details of the transacion. He had personally sold the boots to defendant, who had had previous dealings with the firm. The boots had not been paid for yet. In reply to defendant he admitted that he was not quite certain if defendant was the man to whom he sold the boots. I Defendant, on oath, denied that he had been in tire shop. Neither had he j purchased the boots. He had received I one account for a pair of boots, which he had not answered. Plaintiffs were nonsuited.

BREACH OF AWARD. I M.r. Hal. Goodacre was charged on the I information Of the Inspector of Factories (Mr. W. Slaughter) with having paid an employee wages less than agreed upon uniler the male hoot operatives award. Mr. Roy. who appeared for defendant admitted that his client was liable to a penalty uiideii' the award for a technical breach. The facts of the case were, he said, that Goodacre had apprenticed a lad for five years, and the apprenticeship had rim out last year. After the lad had been working in one department' for one year, he expressed the desire to learn something of machining, and was given the opportunity of doing so. A supplementary agreement was entered j into under which he was to receive 30s i per week while on the machines. The I point was that, having been apprenticed J in one department, he could not, with--1 out special leave, be changed to another ' department. Goodacre was under the J impression that in drawing up the new ) deed of apprenticeship, which the lad ! had signed, he was acting legally and justifiably, and. also, he had voluntarily ' increased the lad's wages. There was > no suggestion that wages had been cut J down or that the lad had been sweated I in anv way. for Goodacre was paying him £2O per annum more than undcrv the first deed of apprenticeship. The Inspector said that the new agreement, dated 1011, was not signed for a yenr after the new award came into force and the rate of wages beincr paid was less than the new awwd called for. Goodacre had an agreement with •the lad to work for him for a year at less than award rates. This was illegal for no such agreement could be made for, a longer period than s.i\- m'ririths.' Then the lad had told him that he had onlv been employed on the machine which he avis to learn for four hours altogether: the rest of the time he had been doin? journeyman's work. The Magistrate said that it was evidently a mistake on Ooodac.re's part, for the matter was a technical one. Defendant ivis fined £2' without cosK