MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 April 1919, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTER(IBefore Mr. A. Crocke, S.M.). CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff 'by default ui the following undefended eases:— A. A, Thompson (Mr. IT. II Billing for Hoy and .Nicholson) v. l'\ iieed, 17s lid (coats os); Tumnaki banners Meat Co. (Mr R. If. Qiulliiira) v. Patrick Kennedy, £0 ,17s Id (costs £1 12s (id); same v. .John Steiner, £3 His 7d (costs 15a); I'aranaki Bakers' and Pastrycooks' i:mon (Mr. Billing) v (i. \V. Gallaber, £1 Ss (costs Cs); L. "w. Balkind (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) v. A. K and E. Priest, £7 10s (costs £1 Os Gd); same v. K. J. and ('. ifclean. 7s Od 'costs IDs); H A- McCleland (Mr. D. Hutchen) v. T. Willing, £-2 5s (costs 13s). BREACH OF AWARD.

The Inspector of Factories (Mr. J. C. Yorke) proceeded against Henry Brown and Co. for a breach of the Timber Workers' and Sawmill Hands' Award, by employing a nightwatehman named Blackburn during the months of October, November and December last without paying him overtime and for £lO wages due.

The Inspector pointed out that during those months plaintiff had worked 63 hour per week, whereas the new. award provided for 54 hours per week. Evidence was given by the plaintiff (Richard W. Blackburn) who said he had been engaged as nightwatolunan, and worked from 9 p.m. to G sum. on seven nights a week. He was not paid for overtime. He had never applied for overtime, but left it "to the honor oi Mr. Tribe to pay."

A copy of the award was put in by the Inspector. In reply to the 'Magistrate witness said he had received £2 15s 6d per week, and the minimum under the new award w«, a £3.

The Magistrate asked if there was any nrovisibn whereby a man might receive lees than the minimum fixed by the award.

The Inspector: That may be the subject of another case. Th roplv'to Mr. A, 1L Johnstone, who represented the defendant company, witneVc caTrl lie had betm about two years in '+iin. prrro'oy of Brown and Co. He admitted being dismissed because he had hern ToiTTif! asleeD by the manager (Mr. TriVi wW on" duty. He had never asked for overtime and never complained a* ffin "Knurs of work. He always worked oTi- SfuntTay night, having been told by the manager to do so. He kept no time-sheets. He denied having been found asleeo during his duty hours at tth%- nftvr-time.

At this stage witness made explanations to the Magistrate as to the condition of his health on the night in question, and claimed he was not in a fit state to have gone on duty, but as the office key had been taken from him he had no means of getting in to ring up the manager and tell him. Continuing witness denied he was not equal to anv other man, and claimed there was no necessity that he should have an underrate workers' permit. This notwith=tandine documentary proof held by Mr. Johnstone to the contrary, and ohnwinsr that a permit had actually" been granted.

The inspector pointed out i that the permit was not applied for during the months of Octoher, November and December, and that consequently he could not during l that period be legally employed for the amount paid. In reply to the inspector witness stated that his hours, which previously were OS per week, had not been altered when tlm new award came into force.

Mr. Johnstone submitted that plaintiff I'fid heen dismissed for incompetence and for sleeping 1 while on duty, also tliat he had never been instructed that he should work on Sunday night. Evidence was given by K. H. Tribe, manager for Henry Brown and Co., in resrard to the hours worked by plaintiff and also as to the permit for underrate worker, He also related the finding of the plaintiff asleep at two o'clock one morning, while on duty. He lad suspected him of sleeping while on duty for some time.

K H. Tuke, engineer at the factory, stated he had been employed there for about three years. He knew ths nightwatchman was an underrate worker. He had never found him asleep, when he had come to work early in the morning, hut he had good reason for Relieving that his arrival had disturbed the sleep of plaintiff on several occasions. The Magistrate entered a conviction and gave judgment for the sum of £2. HORSE AND MOTOR CAB COLLISION. Thomas Sampson (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) farmer, Hillsborough, brought an action for £lO lis 2d against Lionel Bishop (Mr. R H. Quilliam) for damage to a motor car allegedly caused by defendant colliding with it while riding a horse near the entrance to the Egmont road dairy factory on November IS last. Edith Sampson, wife of plaintiff, said in November last her husband waa in camp, and she was assisted on the farm by her nephew, John Edward Sampson. On November 18 she with her nephew, left home in their motor car, at about 20 minutes to seven, to go to the factory to get the mail. She got a letter from her husband. The factory was.on a.lane off the Egmont road, bat there •was no obstruction at the entrance to the lane. Witness read the letter while coming down the lane in the,motor,car, ,On coming out on to the road she saw a horse being ridden rapidly towards them. Her nephew turned the car as far to the left-hand side of the road as possible, but the horse crashed into the car, smashing the windscreen and, mudguard iand lamps and bending several other parts of the ear, which had to lbs sent to the garage for repairs. Defendant; was:' riding the horse, and after the accident made a remark about the. car being somewhat delapidated. A few days'after he came over to see witness about the car and asked her to send him the account for the repairs when she received it. To Mr. Quilliam: When she first sf:w defendant coming towards them he would he a few chains away. He was riding along the metal road on the wrong side. The motor car would be travelling about 12 miles an hour. The accident happened about eight or ten yards along the Esrmoflt road from the factory lane. There were no lighfa on the motor carIt would he about ton minutes to seven when the accident happened. The corner at the factory lane was not dangerous if a driver came round carefully. Defendant was etill on his wrong side when the accident happened. ■Re-examined hv Mr. Johnstone witness stated that it was the side of the car which defendant's horse struck. The car had been pulled over en to the

} left side of the road as far a* was posI sible. , Corroborative evidence was given, by John Edward Sampson, who drove the motor car on the evening in question_ To Mr. Quilliam: When he first saw [Bishop the ear was just at the entrance to factory lane. Bishop would then be about a chain away. He thought he could pull the car up in about its own length. The car was at a standstill when the horse struck it. There were no hedges near the eutrance of the lane to obstruct the view of the Egmont road. Evidenco was aljo given by plaintiff as to the costs of repairs to the car. The account was given by him to defendant, and was later returned to witness through the factory manager. > Defendant, in evidence, stated that he finished his milking on the evening of the accident at 7 o'clock. After feeding the calves he got his horse and went to the factory for his mail. On the way he stopped to speak to Darcy Bishop. He was going at an easy canter. He ran into the motor car right in tffe gateway leading to the factory. He did not hear any sounding of a motor hcyn, nor did ho see any lights on the ear. He stated there were hedges along the lane and along the Egmont road- The gate was about five yards back from the road line. While going towards the factory he passed three motor cars, add all had lights showing. Sunset on the day in question was at 7.10 p.m. He denied admitting liability to Mrs. Sampson for the damage to the motor car_

To Mr- Johnstone: Be went to Mrs. Sampson's a day or two after the accident, because Mr. Harry Sampson had sent word to say they wanted to see him. He never said he would pay the account for repairs. He asked if they had the account, and how much it was. There were all sorts of yarns going about as to the damage done to the car. He admitted taking the account to his father, hut said he was not going to pay for the damage. The hedges at the lane were about eight feet high. Ho could not. see the entrance to the lane aa he rode along. He was keeping a look out as: he went along, and denied going at i.rtiore than an easy ..canter. He was also on his proper side.' -He was: abjmt iten yards away when he s * w tHe motor car. '*" '*«£ ;' Evidence was. given "by 'Bfrcf, Bishop as to the time at which he' saw. defendant on the road>"and also thTMythe broken glass of the windscreen ;,w,as . seen next morning right in the gateway, showing that the accident 'happened just there. T* -T. Greenway, for whom defendant worked, also gave evidence as to the time of finishing milking on the evening of the accident, which he did not think was lator than usual. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with dost ,£2 13s.