MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 February 1922, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CASES AT NEW PLYMOUTH, * A number of police and civil cases were dealt with at yesterday's sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in New Plymouth. Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., presided. TWO YEARS* PROBATION. After a week’s adjournment ordered by His Worship for the purpose of securing a report from the probation officer, Catherine Gillbanks appeared on the charge of sending through the post a packet containing an indecent article. A charge of aiding and abetting the offence was preferred against Ellen McCurdy, and both defendants had pleaded guilty last week. “I am going to give you a chance,” said His Worship, in announcing decision. “I hope both of you realise the filthy nature of this offence. It seems strange that any persons classing themselves as women could have dreamt of doing such a thing.” In reply to His Worship, defendants said they now realised the nature of the offence, but it didn’t appeal to them before that the act was a disgusting one.

“Well, that is a thing I can’t possibly fathom.” was His Worship’s comment, “and particularly I can’t understand a woman who is a mother of children doing such a thing. The probation officer has recommended that you be put on probation, and I intend to accept that recommendation.”

In admitting accused to probation for two years, His Worship pointed out to them that if they got into any sort of trouble again they would find themselvesin serious difficulties. An order for the payment of expenses was made against accused. Mrs. Gillbanks to pay 19s and Ellen McCurdy 17s. ALTERING THE HALF-HOLIDAY. An anomaly existing in regard, to the alteration of the half-holiday in Christmas week was referred to in the course of a case brought by the Labor Department for a breach of the Shops and Offices Act. O. N. Sole, butcher, was charged with failing to close his shop at one o’clock on Thursday, December 22, as required by law. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, pleaded not guilty. . Mr. W. J. Mountjoy (inspector), who conducted the case for the department, said the offence was committed in Christmas week. Owing to the fact that Christmas Eve fell on a Saturday, those shops which usually observed. Saturday were allowed to keep some other day, and chose Monday. Butchers and some other trades, however, which observed Thursday, were required to close on the usual day day, no matter whether they elected to shut their premises on another half day in the week Notice had been sent to all the butchers informing them of the regulations-

Mr. Quilliam objected to any suggestion that Sole had deliberately flouted the law. The position was unfortunate,, as no provision was made to relieve butchers who Thursday halfholiday. In this'’* instance the firm had previously told their customers that the shop would be open to receive orders on the Thursday, and decided that it was in the interests of all to keep to this arrangement. The employees were not cheated out of their half-holiday, as Monday was observed, and counsel contended no Injury had been done. In reply, the inspector contended that in electing to keep his shop open, Sole had gained an advantage over the other butchers. .His Worship entered a conviction, and fined defendant £l, court costs 7s. BREACH OF SLAUGHTERING ACT. An information for a breach of the Slaughtering Act was preferred against T. E. Mack, proprietor of a boiling-down works. The offence consisted in the feeding of the raw entrails of stock to pigs. Mr. C. H. Croker pleaded guilty on behalf of defendant. The inspector of stock (Mr. F. W. Sutton) said that on December 23 he had visited the defendant’s premises in connecting with other business, and noticed that entrails of either sheep or cattle had been placed in the pig pens. There was a good deal of mud about, and the whole thing was pretty filthy. The feeding of raw entrails to pigs was a matter on which the department was fairly particular. Mr. Croker said that the offence had been committed by an employee while Mack was absent. His Worship remarked that the Act evidently looked on the offence with a certain amount of seriousness. A fine of £5, with costs 7/-, would be imposed. THE LABOR LAWS. Henry Maddock, cabinet-maker, was charged by the Labor Department with using as a factory a building which was not registered under the Act. and also with failing to keep a wages book. He pleaded not guilty. The facts were stated for the department by the in- i spector (Mr. W. J. Mountjoy), and in reply defendant said he was told by the present inspector’s predecessor that it was not necessary to register. In regard to keeping a wages book and time book he also did not think it was necessary, as his employee was on a weekly wage.

For non-registration of his factory, defendant was fined ’Os and costs 14s. On the second charge, which His Worship regarded as the most serious, a fine of £l, with costs 7s, was imposed. 'ARCHITECT’S FEES.

Alexander R. Peddie (Mr. H. R. Billing) sued for the recovery of £l2 10s, fees for preparing plans, from Ernest Thomas. The case for plaintiff was that, though not a registered architect, Peddie had carried on business as a builder and architect for a number of years. He was engaged by defendant to prepare plans for a house which was estimated to cost £7OO. The charge was 2A per cent, on the estimated cost of the house, and amounted to £l7 10s. The sum of £5 had been paid before the action had been brought, and now £5 had been paid into court. The contention put forward by Mr. Quilliam for defendant was that the job was to have been done for nothing, Peddie and Thomas having been in close relationship with one or two matters. Thomas was building the house on land that he had bought through Peddie. It was arranged that Peddie should draw the plans, but no mention was made of any charge. Nothing was said until about six months had elapsed, when, without any warning, Thomas received notice asking for £l7 10s as payment for the plans. Thomas agreed to pay £lO, of which half was paid as deposit, but there was no stipulation as to when the balance should be forthcoming. His Worship gave judgment for plain-

tiff for the amount paid into court—namely, £,5, and costs 7s, no further costs being allowed. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default war. given as follows: C. E. Carlson v. E. Clarke, £5 5s 2d, costs £1 19s 6d; The United Insurance Co., Ltd., v. H. Martini, £6 13s lid, costs £1 10s 6d; L. T. Cresswell v. Te Puni, £5 14s lOd, costs £1 16s 6d; Robert Hood v. Lewis R. Hope, £l4 2s, costs £2 15s; Blanche I. Lawrence v. Owen Brown (costs on claim), 12s 3d; New Plymouth Borough Council v. Margaret L. Drury, Bridget George, Mary J. Temper©, and Thomas P. O’Donnell, £4 19s lOd, costs £1 18s 6d.

On a judgment summons from Hastings Daniel Field was ordered to pay Gallagher and Co. £25 5s at the rate of £1 per month, the first payment to be made a month hence.

At the suit of White’s, Ltd., Arthur J. Hili' was ordered to pay £8 18s, in default nine days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended for one month after service of order.