AN APPEAL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2192, 16 May 1908, Page 3

AN APPEAL CASE.

IS A WOOL STORE A FACTORY?

Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, May 10. _ Mr Justice Denniston delivered ins reserved judgment this morning in the appeal case of William Herbert Hanger against Arthur TVilliani BennettT His Honor said that the defendant, in the information, was the Lyttelton manager of the New Zealand' Shipping Company, Ltd. and, as such, was the occupier of a building in Lyttelton in which the Company carried on the operation of “dumping” wool and Max. The presses by which the operation was effected were ouerated by machinery driven by a thirty horse power gas engine. Wool was originally packed by pressure into bales which were then sewn up. At the port of shipment they were “dumped”; that was, two bales were put together into a press whore they were, by strong mechanical pressure, reduced to the bulk of one, and when'so reduced and while in tho press, steel bands were fastened round them by which they were retained- in their compressed form. Tlio object of the process was for the purpose of enabling a larger quantity to be carried so as to save freight. Tho question raised by the appeal was whether the “dumping” was “packing goods for transit” so as to make the building in which it was carried on a “factory” as defined by the interpretation clause (section 2) of the. Factories Act 1991. He iffolight it was clear that the process was one by which the wool was packed for transit and he thought, therefore, that the appeal should be allowed with £5 5s costs.