MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8517, 23 August 1907, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY.

(Before Mr W. P. James, S.M.)

Michael Rock was charged with having been drunk and was deemed to be an habitual drunkard, having been three times previously convicted within the last six months. Accused was fined 20s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment, and a prohibition order lor twelve months was issued against him. David"McDonald pleaded guilty to a charge of being an idle and disorderly person, and was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour. Beale and Parton were charged with a breach of the "Second Hand Dealers' Act," by carrying on the business of second hand dealers without being the holders of a license under the Act. Sergeant Miller stated that the defendants purchased lead on two j occasions from the two boys who j were charged at the sitting of the j Juvenile Court with the theft of the j lead. Mr P. L. Hollings, who appeared for the defendants, admitted the , facts of the case, and contended that! there was no such thing as second j hand lead any more than second hand | ,gold. He further contended that j section 14 of the Act completely ; •exonerated the defendants, who, he; said, had no idea that the lead had . been btolen. I The Magistrate said there was no ( -doubt that section 14 covered the j case, and the defendants were not , liable. He said that people buying | articles such as those mentioned in ■ the charge should exercise more care, j He warned the defendants to be more careful in future, and dismissed the ! • case. j A similar charge was preferred j against Thomas Ridgway. j Mr James administered a sirri- 1 lar warning in this case, and dismissed the information. On a charge of allowing a chimney to become foul and get on fire, on August 20th, a local resident was . fined 10s, with 7s costs. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in each of the following cases George Townsend v. Dennis - Hogan, claim for £8 19s 3d, judgment ; < for £4 19s 3d, as £4 had been paid, ■ £1 12s 6d; T. W. Barnes v. J. .JgiSThompson, claim for possession of and £5 8s 6d rent, judgment given for the amount claimed, | and defendant ordered to give up possession on or before August 24th, costs £1 15s; J. L. Murray v. John Fuley, claim £1 0s Id, costs ss; same v. Geo. Whittaker, claim £3 0s 4d, judgment for £1 6s, costs 9s. S. Liddington claimed from Jas. Hourigan the sum of £3O 8s for ploughing done by plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that he was engaged to plough 76 acres at 8s per acre, j but defendant alleged that there was j only 71 acres 2 roods in the paddock, i The Magistrate gave judgment for ; plaintiff for £2B 12s, with £3 16s [ costs. Mr Hollings appeared for the plaintiff. j A lad, named Donald McDonald, ; sued S. H. Rasmussen, farmer of Mt. Baker, for the recovery of £3 for wages due. • Mr Pownall, who appeared for the plaintiff, said the claim was for six weeks labour at the rate of 10s per week. Plaintiff commenced work on June 24th, and the claim was up to July 29th, although the plaintiff did not actually work till the 29th. On the latter date the sixth week of plaintiff's work would have expired, but on the Friday preceding the plaintiff with the consent of defendant went to a concert. The plaintiff did not return till the Sunday night, but he sent his cousin to do his work on the Saturday. When the plaintiff ; returned on Sunday night he was told that he was not wanted any more. I Mr Beard, for the defence, said that the case was being defended on principle. A boy should not be allowed to leave his work and start for another employer when he liked. An | offer of £2 10s for five weeks' work j had been made but was refused. | Judgment was given for £2 10s without costs. Thomas Dwyer was sued by Charles H. Mitchell for the sum of £24 6s 8d for wages. Mr Hollings appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pownall for the defendant. Mr Hollings, in outlining the case for the plaintiff, said that his client was engaged about the end of May last by the defendant as a mechanical engineer in a motor garage for a term at £3 per week, and after the expiry of that period at £3 10s per week. Plaintiff left the place where he was employed on Tuesday, May 28th, and it was understood between the two parties that he was to start i work on the following Monday. On ■ that day the plaintiff took his tools j to the defendant's garage but defendv ' ant said that there was no work to " done. Later on defendant sent - plaintiff to Wellington to get some machinery, and paid him 10s, as well as expenses. bome time later defendant paid plaintiff £3 "to keep ~ him going," as he said. He again said there was no work to be done, and this state of affairs had been going on ever since, and defendant had not fulfilled his contract. In the meantime plaintiff had secured odd jobs and had received £l4 13s 4d for which amount he gave defendant credit. The full claim for wages was £39, but the claim was reduced by giving credit for the £l4 13s 4d. The defence, as outlined by Mr Pownall, was a general denial of the contract. Counsel submitted that it could not be found that plaintiff was engaged for a fixed period for the reason that defendant absolutely denied any such agreement. There was no written agreement, and it was only the word of one man against that of another as to the term of the agreement. He took it that the Court required some corroborative evidence to plaintiff's story, and counsel submitted there was none. Another reason why the Court could not find that plaintiff was engaged for a fixed period, was that plaintiff's own evidence did not fix the term of the engagement, but only the wages to be paid. That being the

case plaintiff was only entitled to a week's notice. After hearing the case, the Magistrate said there was no evidence as to the term of the engagement. It would appear, however, that plaintiff was working for defendant until June 24th, on which date defendant dismissed the plaintiff, and had a right to do so. He would give judgment for four weeks' work at £3 per week, less the sum of £3 10s paid to plaintiff, with costs £1 16s.