TO KEEP HER SICK CHILD

Evening Star, Issue 19790, 14 February 1928, Page 11

TO KEEP HER SICK CHILD

IAUAID'S LICENSE KEPT ALIVE BV HOLIDAY WORK PROSECUTION FAILS [Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, February 13. The Licensing Amendment Act of 1910, by which restrictions were placed on the employment of women as barmaids, was the basis of a case heard before Mr Justice Reed and a jury at the Supreme Court, when Marie .Louisa Burgess, a married woman, was charged with making a false declaration betore a justice of the peace. Accused, who was defended by Mr Dickson, pleaded not guilty. Prosecuting on behalf of the Crown, Mr Meredith explained that the legislation of 1910 did not deprive existing barmaids of their situations, but was fiamed to prevent the further engagement of women as barmaids in New Zealand hotels, The clause covering the employment of women who were already barmaids laid it down that if for a period of two years or more they ceased to bo so employed, they should not be allowed to be re-employed. In March of last year accused made a sworn declaration before a J.LL, in which she gave particulars regarding her work at various hotels. The fates to which she had sworn made it appear that she had not been out of employment as a barmaid for a continuous period of two years. The point Co be decided was whether Mrs Burgess laid or had not been continuously employed. Evidence would be called to prove that the statements, made by accused were false.

Alter evidence for the prosecution, Mr Dickson said the charge amounted to an accusation of perjury, and it must bo proved that the statements were made with intent to deceive, and this, conned submitted, had not been proved. Accused was a woman of excellent character, it was not denied that she had worked in a drapery establishment, but she had not ceased to be employed as a barmaid tor a peiiod of two years. Giving evidence, Mrs Burgess said she was living apart from her husband. She had one child to support, and wanted to re-obtnin employment as barmaid. Her little girl was ill, and what, witness received was not sufficient to support them and pay doctors’ and chemists’ hills. She might have been wrong in some of the dates she gave, but she had not the intention to deceive It was finite true that she was employed at a drapery establishment for a long time, but sho had a holidayeach year, and during these holidays she worked as a barmaid in order to keep her certificate. There was one hotel at which she had worked which she did not mention in her declaration. Tho jury returned a verdict oi not guilty, and accused was discharged.