CHILD LABOUR

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 38, 14 August 1919, Page 7

CHILD LABOUR

AN EMPLOYER AS GUARDIAN

Failure tb send a boy to school resulted ( in the appearance of William Beavis, farmer, of Akatarawa, before Messrs. P. D. Davis and P. Robertson, J.P.s, lit, the Upper Hutt Magistrate's Court yesterday. .-■••■ ' The attendance officer (Mr. J. W. Butler), stated that the boy (William Max), was fourteen years of age last . month, and he had only passed the third primer. He had been employed from : time to time about the district, and for . ■■' some months was working for the defendant at a salary of 10s a week, with board. »It was one of the worst cases broughtj before the Court, and the employer was liable under the Education Act for fail; • ure to send the boy to school, as he became the guardian within the meaning . of the Act, seeing that the boy was living . with him, and doing farm work when ho should have been at school, v. The defendant said the boy was big ■ for.his age, and he was not aware that he was under fourteen years of age, but he admitted having employed the boy ' some two years ago. .;, The Bench said that the practice of ■ employing - children of school age was Srowing, and it was necessary in the interests of the young that it should he checked. Ignorance of the requirements, of tho Education Act did not justify a breach,of the law, but the Court would take into consideration the fact that the .. boy had been employed in the first place as a whistle boy at one of the timber mills, and had this employer also.been before the Court the fine would have /'; been a much more substantial one. Tho defendant was fined 4s, with costs 17s. At the suggestion of the Bench.the In- - spector said that he would tiring the. matter of the employment of the boy at the timber factory under the notice., of the Labour Department. William Thomas Max, the father of the boy, was also charged with failure to send' the. boy to school at other times. The Bench expressed surprise that a father should so neglect his child's education as to allow him to leave school with practic- . ally no education, which must result ia tho lad drifting into the poorest of paid1 casual labour. The Education Act was framed to protect the children. The father was fined the sum of 10s, with 7s costs, on each of two charges. At the suggestion, of the Inspector, the father agreed to endeavour to get the boy to at- , tend school until he was sixteen, even although he' is now over 'the compulsory age. ' ■>'■:■'