SOLDIERS' BLANKETS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 35, 5 November 1919, Page 7

SOLDIERS' BLANKETS

CHARGE AGAINST A LAUNDRY

BREACH OF WASHING CONTRACT ALLEGED. By Telegraph-Press .- asociatlon. Christohurch, November -1. In the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. S. E. M'Cartiiy, S.M., Brown's Highbury Laundry, Ltd.", was charged that it did wilfully" break- a contract made with the Crown in respect of and for the. purpose of the present war, on or about ,!u;ie 20, 11)19, for the washing of military blankets, by not properly washing certain of the blankets, find by delivering them not. properly washed, as they should have been, pursuant to the said contract, contrarv to the. War Regulations Act. li'l4, "dated Novem'ber. 1915, and published in the Gazette on November 15, 1915.

. For the prosecution it was alleged that a contract was let to the laundry in .lime last to wash nearly JOOO blankets from the troopship Pakeha. The blankets were returned from the laundry, and an account for .1:199 19s. was rendered. In. consequence of something which came to the notice of the Shaw, Snvill, ami Albion Company, the owners of the vessel, the master of the ship was communicated with, and the blankets were' examined, a large proportion being found to be unwashed. Officials of the company interviewed the directors and manager of the kiundry, the lastnamed admitting that he had not washed all tho Mankets, but all had gone through the drier and fumigntnr. The directors, it was stated.'were'surprised and d'sgusted at the admission.

William Osmond Solomon, who was en.ployed at the laundry for twelve days, paid Street, the manager, had said to him, "Whatever you see going on in this laundry, keep your moiitli shut, as there are tricks and haves in all trades." Witness continued tiltat the blankets wero picked over and tht> extra dirty ones washed. Subsequently they were bundled ni; soms, pavceis containing unwashed blankets, and others two clean and three dirty ones, tho clean ones being placed at' tho top and bottom. When lie left tho laundry he gave. Air. Leadlcy, secretary of the 'Returned Soldiers' Association, particulars of the course adopted with the blankets, and laid an information.

Other evidence was given regarding the inspection made of the bundles of 'blankets at-Tiinam and the washing of 1)770 by a Wcf.ling.ton laundry. For the. dofenie it was .submitted that the wording of the regulation was vague, and it wis difficult to see what tne requirements were. Counsel took it that the regulations meant that once a contract wan entered into it must not be ■broken off in the middle to enter into another contract. In the present ca.-e no evidence had been adduced that any compact had been entorcd into. If tho contract had been made with the Shaw'Savill Co., nothing had been shown by that company to the defendants that they were acting on behalf of tho Imperial Government. The word Crown in the regulations meant the New Zealand Government, as Parliament had no power to pass laws affecting subjects abroad. If this was the.yisi» then .-inil a contract had been entered into with the Shaw, Savill Company as agents of the. Imperial Government, then the ense must fail. It wis also necessary that guilty knowledge should be proved against the company. Decision was reserved. The oaso against Street will be beard to-morrow.