COURT OF APPEAL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8197, 30 July 1906, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL.

.A FAR-KEACHINQ JUDGMENT. A judgment which will have farreaehing effect was given in the Court of Appeal ut Wellington on Saturday, says the Post In effect ?t makes clear that every person •working at a Hade thut is subject to an award of the Arbitration Court has the right to recover from his •employer tbe full sum that he may j hivo been short-paid, even if there be iu existence an agreement; to work at lesser rates ttiun those set onfc iu the award. Though the judgments delivered on Saturday ir.nuiiog do not set out the noiut, it ib i fact that during the hearing of toy ease an impression was expressed byione of the judges that oven the Statute of Limitations would not •apply in S' j ch cases, the Arbitra tiou and Conciliation Act being independent of that statute. Therefore it follows that any claims such as these can he male iu respect of arrears accumulated since the Act was passed (1895). In the case just decided the appellants were Baillie and Co., printers, of Pahiatua, and tie respondent was u lad named Koese, ou whose behalf an agreement to work at the printing trade ou stipulated terms was entered iuto. Baillie and Co. were parties to an award made* by the Arbitration Court, and under this award the lad was entitled to greater wages than those paid to him under the agreement made on his behalf. The questions were whether it was competent tor him to SUB ia the Magistrate's Court for recovery of the short-paid moneys. On appeal from the Stipendiary Magistrate to the Chief Justice his Honour held that the lad was so entitled to do and in the judgments of their Honours Justices Edwards, Cooper and Chapman (who sat as the Court of Appeal to try the case) this view was endorsed, and the general right of parties similarly situated to Reese to sue civilly for reoovery of wages was affirmed. It lo of interest to recall that Bailiie and Co. were fined by the Arbitration Court for having committed a breach of avard in respect to Reese. Wo order as to payment of arrears of wages to Reese was then made, and subsequently Reese began the civil proceedings whioh have now terminated. The Court of Appeal judgment affirms that Reese is entitled to recover £sl 163, and dismisses the appeal with costs on the lowest soale.

GARDNER AND SONS v. MAIR

By Telegraph—Press Association.

WELLINGTON, July 28.

The Supreme Court delivered its decision in the case of Gardner und Sous v. Mair. In this case the appellants were sawmillers in the Upper Rangitikei district, and respondent was a road inspector for the Rangitikei County Council An information was laid against the appellants in the Magistrate's Court at Taihape claiming the ooat of the repair of the county road over which the appellants carted their timber, and which, it was claimed their "extraordinary traffic" had damaged. The information was laid under section 138 of the Publio Works Act 1894. Tbe Magistrate, held the appellants liable for part of the damage to the road in question, which he assessed at £173. The appellants appealed to the Distrot Court at Wanganui, but the oase was removed into th« Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari, and heard by the full bench, consisting of tbe Chief Justice and Justices Edwards, Cooper and" Chapman during the last sittings of the Court of Appeal. The main question was whether tbe County Council, having granted licenses for heavy traffic to tbe appellants and having received Jioense fees from them, could also charge them with damage done to the road under section 138 of the Publio Works Aot 1894. It was held unanimously by tbe Court that the appellants could be made liable under section 138 although they hod paid license fees for heavy traffic to the County Council. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

MoRAE v. JOHNSTONE

The Court of Appeal in this case delivered judgment, dismissing the appeal of the defendant from the judgment of the Chief Justioe, with costs. The judgment completely rebuts any allegation of fraud on the part of the plaintiff. The case was first heard in the District Court, and judgment was given for defendant. Against tnis tba plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice, reversed the judgment of the District Court, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £l9O and coats. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, and that Court has now upheld the judgment of the Onief Justice in favour of plaintiff. Mr P. L. Ilollings was solicitor for appellant;, and Mr C. A. Pownall for respondent.