ELTHAM.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1922, Page 6

ELTHAM.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. MAINTENANCE CASES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Eltham, September 26. A sitting of the Magsitrate’s Court was held at Eltham to-day before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. Margaret Jane Brew, mother of a family of 12, applied for a maintenance order against three of her younger sons—James, John and Michael Brew. The applicant said her husband had left her two years ago, and since then no one had given her anything, excepting a little help given by a single daughter. She got a small pension in respect of a son who was killed at the front. She had formerly’ gone out to work, but was now unwell and incapable. James and Michael Brew were ordered to pay 4s per week maintenance. An order was made against John Brew, who, un|il recently, had been contributing, to pay 2s per week.

Alfred Murray and John Murray were charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order in favor of their parents, Thomas and Fannie Murray. Mr. Crump, who appeared on behalf of defendants, said that as far as John was concern'd he was absolutely unable to pay anything. He was a returned soldier who had taken over a farm, and the Commissioner of Lands was taking half of his milk cheque. Alfred Murray? said that he had been out of work for four months. He had paid £4 from the last cheque he received, in March. The matter was conditionally adjourned till October 31, so that a third brothei could be brought before the Court. Samuel White was charged with failing to provide maintenance for his wife, Bridget White, and six children. An application for a separation and guardianship order was also made by his wife. An order of separation was made, and the guardianship of the children was vested in the applicant. White was ordered to pay £1 per week to his wife and 4s per week to each of five children for future maintenance; also £25 arrears. He was also required to enter into a bond of £75, deposited with the Public Trustee, or find one or more sureties for the same amount, conditioned for the due obedience of the order. PLYING WITHOUT LICENSE.

C. E. Betts was charged under the Eltham Borough by-laws with being the owner of a motor omnibus plying for hire within the borough without a license. T. Bennie was charged with driving the omnibus without having a license to do so. Mr. Sheat, who appeared for the borough inspector, said that the omnibus had been running for several years without a license. The fact that this was so, and that defendants refused to pay license-fees which should have been paid in past years, was the<qglv reason why the matter had been brought to Court, as defendants were willing to take out a license for the current year.

Mr. A. Stewart, for defendants, said the omnibus picked up passengers at the railway station for Kaponga, but did not actually ply for hire in the town. This. Mr. Sheat claimed, was not correct, the present charge being in respect to an incident in the main street of ;the town. On Mr. Stewart giving an undertaki.-.g that licenses would be taken out by both the owner and the driver, the magistrate fined Betts £l, with costs £1 Bs, and convicted and discharged Bennie. CLAIM FOR BOARD. Judgment for £5 15s was given for P. Major against W. G. Hayward, on a claim for that amount, for arrears of payment for board. WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. A claim for £lOO damages for alleged wrongful dismissal was brought by T. J. and M. Allen against E. Forrester and G. E. Mullions, executors in the estate of R. Best, deceased. It was claimed that plaintiffs had been engaged to manage a farm at Toko, the arrangement to hold for two years. Mr. L. A. Taylor appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. A. Chrystal for defendants.

The defence was that defendants had proved themselves incompetent; that Allen had signed a receipt for £l5 15s in full I satisfaction of his claim for wages, thereby absolving defendants from any further liability, and that the contract was terminated by the death of Best. Evidence was given by both plaintiffs detailing the arrangement between themselves and Best. After completion of the arrangement, plaintiffs received notification of the death of Best. They were instruct ed, however, by representatives of Best’s estate,-to go on with the agreement, which they did. After working for a few weeks, the executors in the estate gave them a week’s notice to quit. A receipt for a month’s wages was presented to them and signed by Allen. This, Allen stated, was not accepted as full satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ claim, but merely as payment of the first month’s wages. Plaintiffs had never received any complaint of their incompetency. Mr. Chrystal claimed a non-suit, on the points he advanced, but this the magistrate refused to grant without hearing evidence. Mr. Chrystal then went on with the case. He contended that it was practice to engage farm hands by the week, and that they could be dismissed by a week’s notice. This, he claimed, applied to the present case. He claimed that an agreement in writing was necessary. Edward Forrester said that Allen had admitted that he had not had previous experience on rough country. When given a week’s notice, Allen had at first asked for a month’s notice. He later claimed six months’ wages, and again 12 months’ wages. Mr. Taylor said at the conclusion of the evidence that the claim for £lOO was based on the facts that plaintiffs were unemployed for only a month after dismissal, and that they had been induced to sell farming implements at considerable loss. The magistrate said that a claim against a deceased estate had to be proven more definitely than any other. He claimed that the fact that an arrangement had been arrived at between Best and the plaintiffs had been proved. He then dealt with the non-suit points. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for , £25. with costs, £3 14s. Mr. Chrystal mentioned the possibility of an appeal, and the magistrate said he would fix the security on an application being made.