CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3787, 14 April 1875, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, April 14. (Before Hia Worship the Mayor, and J. S, Hickson, Esq., J.P.)

Drunkenness.—Thos. Jenning, for this offence, was fined sa, or 24 hours’ imprisonment; James Pratt, 10s and {coats ; Alice Ruth, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s, or 48 hours.’ iHer two children were sent to the Industrial School for seven years, to be brought up in the Church of England form of persuasion. His Worship said that if she behaved herself in the future, and showed herself able to maintain them, she would have the chance of having them withdrawn from the school.

Breachof the Females’ Employment Act. —Messrs Kirkpatrick, Glendming and Co. were charged, on the information of Jessie Wilson with violating the above Act on March 22nd, 25th, and 31sk Mr Stewart appeared for the accused. —Jessie Wilson, man( le-maker, Slid that she was in the employ of the accused, with a wage of 12s 6d per week. She went to work on the morning of the 22nd March at nine o clock, and left off at twenty minutes to seven. —Amelia Dood, forewoman in the accused’ employ, remembered the 22nd March, She said that complainant left off work at six o’clock, or perhaps five minutes past, on that ei*.iing. They always rose from their work at that hour, Mr Glendining having given special instructions that they should do so.—A number of others employed in the dress-

making department gave_ evidence, but they could not swear at what time tre complainant left off on the evening in Mr Stewart, for the defer ce, Bubmum&d that complainant had not been employed by the - fendants to workbeyond the specified time, and they could not be held for the acts of Miss Dodd, as she was not acting on theirinstructions. Defendants, on the other hftud, had always had the Act carried out In its strictest sense. The Bench dismissed the case eolr’y on the pound of insufficient evidence- that complainant had been employed between six in the evening and nine iu the morning. JHad there been sufficient evidence on that point, the Bench would have had no hesitation in inflicting a penalty. They held that the work need not be done with the or con ' ei rt the employers to make a breach nr* ll,B Act, It was certainly the duty of S Courted Z (Mr Saß ry> h op®d that they would not be a£* aMd °* endeavoring to gain popularity by saying so, Protect the young ladies employed in the shops, i l6 trusted that employers throughout the City would take notice that the case was dismissed solely on the ground of insufficient evidence. The other cases were withdrawn. Adulterated Liquor.—Thomas Oliver was charged with selling, on the 25th of March, liquor which was said by Professor Black to was no evidence to show that Olliver had any b* adulterated. Case dismissed, as there connection with it.