MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2567, 30 July 1909, Page 7

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, JULY 29. (Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given fc r plaintiff in each of the following cases: Commissioner of Taxes v. East Coast Timber and Trading Coy., claim £4 7s lOd, and costs ss; Same v. W. T. Rogers, claim £2 9s lOd, and costs 11s; C. E. Edmonds (Mr Coleman), v. Lloyd Bros, claim £7 12s 3d ar|d costs £1 G§ 6d; Oliver Sandlant (Mr Mann) v. Sonny Sidney, claim £5 Os 6d and costs £1 9s 6d. JUDGMENT CASES. In the cases of Edward Victor Featon (Mr Blair), v. William Henry Jones, claim £3 18s, defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default 4 days’ imprisonment; and Albert E.. Napier Smith (Mr Bright) v. C. Pitt, defendant was. ordered to pay the debt, £lB 10s, within five months, in default 19 days’ imprisonment. CLAIM FOR OVERTIME.

Frederick William King (Mr Coleman) claimed £9 18s from Cuthbe'rt, Morse (Mr Burnard) for overtime work as a hairdresser in his saloon. Mr Coleman mentioned that the de* fendant had already been fined under the Factories Act for working plaintiff overtime. The plaintiff said he was in defendant’s employ from September 1908 to March 1909. He was a hairdresser’s assistant at £2 12s 6d a week. Kis wages had all been paid, but the overtime had not been paid for. He had worked on an average of 5 hours a week overtime. He had ma*.le a demand on the defendant for the money; hut he refused to pay. To Mr Burnard: No hours were mentioned when he entered defendant’s employ, but .the usual week’s work was 52 hours. Defendant at first offered him £2 10s a week; but witness said he wanted £2 1% 6d. Some time ‘after he was in defendant’s employ he told defendant 1 the hours were long. Defendant promised him a bonus at Christmas time, and gave him £3, but told him not'to mention it to the other assistants. He did not ask for payment for overtime while he was in Morse’s employ. He was given a holiday on one race day, but worked in the saloon for another. assistant who wished to go to the races. Witness had never been to races in Gisborne. 'He was usually punctual at his work. Defendant never complained that witness was late, for work. - Mr Burnard argue*! that though the Shops and Offices Act limited the hours that assistants must be employed and inflicted a penalty in case of a breach, it did not follow that the employer was liable to pay for that overtime if there was no award in force under the Arbitration Act. The case shoulU, therefore, be non-suited. William Cuthbert Morse, gave evidence that plaintiff was.in his employ as a hairdresser’s assistant. The standard wage was £2 10s a week ,but plaintiff said the hours were long and he was paid £2 12s 6d. He also gave , -King -and his ether assistants a bonus ; Plain-

ed overtime. • Witness or his brother opened the shop' in the morning at about a quarter of an hour past 8 o’clock. Plaintiff usually arrived shortly after that time. t Ralph Morse, brother of the defendant, gave similar evidence, and His oWorship intimated that he would give judgment this morning. . A LONG STANDING ACCOUNT.

Gaynor Carrington (Mr Coleman sued Robert Scott (Mr Bright) for £6, balance due on the sale of a stallion which took place in 1903, and the action was almost statute barred. Mr Coleman said plaintiff sold the stallion to defendant in 1903, he had made frequent demarAls for the money but had always been put off. The plaintiff gave evidence that he sold the defendant the horse in question for £l2 and was paid £6 on account. The hotrse was delivered the same day. Witness bought the horse in question for £lO. The horse was about 14 years of age and had taken several prizes at shows. It was agreed that if the stallion was successful the balance £6 was to be paid. Witness learned afterwards that the horse had been badly cut by a wire fence anil rendered almost useless. Witness-ask-ed for the amount due, but defendant said "that as the. horse had been hurt witness should let the amount stan*d over until the following season. Defendant said he was satisfied with his bargain; but about a year afterwards said he would not pay the balance. Mr Bright held that the sale vras made under certain conditions and the horse had not proved all the defendant anticipated. Bertie Steggall said lie’ was present when the horse was purchased. The condition of the amount to he paM was the success of the horse as a stallion. (‘he defendant said he bought the horse at a price of £6 cash and £6 to be paid under certain conditions. "Witness thought the price rather low. The horse did not prove a success. It was true the horse met with an accAlent, but that did not effect the usefulness of the animal. His Worship said the evidence showed that the horse was not equal to the price asked. Mr Coleman asked that plaintiff be non-suited, and that course was agreed to with £1 7s costs.