MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2276, 14 May 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ILLEGALLY .OX LICENSED

PREMISES

At-the Magistrate’s Court yestertay, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Frederick Walls and James Tyson, neither of whom appeared, were charged with being illegally on the licensed premises of the Post Office Hotel on March 20th. ■ Constable Owen said that on Sunday, the 20th March, lie visited the Post Office Hotel at about 9 a.m., and found both defendants waiting by the stairs. Neither were boarders, and had no excuses to offer for their being there. Both defendants were convicted and lined £2, and 7s costs.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Charles Henry Aldridge appeared on a charge that he cruelly worked a horse on March 4th. Constable Owen stated that on the 4th inst. he examined a horse that defendant was using oil a milk round. He found a sore on the neck under the collar, and a large running sore on the top of the hip bone. He stated that the horse appeared i;o be very weak. Defendant had immediately taken the horse out on his speaking to him about it, and it has since been turned out.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, and stated that lie did not know much about horses. Defendant was convicted and fined £2, and 7s costs.

ABSENCE FROM SCHOOL,

William Andresen, parent of Walter Andresen, was charged that he had failed to send his son to school on February 28th, March Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Owing to defendant qoi being able to lie present, his wife appeared on bis behalf. She stated that her son had not attended school an the dates mentioned on account ,)f suffering from scabs.

Mr Skinner, truant inspector, pointed out that the boy was not hen -ul'l'ering from the disease, but inid since contracted them. He -tated that defendant bad previously been written to by the bead teacher, Mr Furrie, about the boy's absence from school, and that this notice had been ignored. He point'd out that tbe child’s attendance lad been 14 out of a possible of 78, ,ml -that lie was 0 years 7 months M age and was only in the second

■uniidard. He further said that the ■hild had been well enough to attend ihe picture shows at the time of his ibsence from school. Defendant was convicted and fined 10s, with 7s costs.

INSPECTOR OF AWARDS v

M. E. PERREAU,

M, E. Perreau was charged that (1) he failed to comply with the regulations of the Award by not keeping a holiday hook, and (2) that he was not paying two of his employees the wages required to be paid them by the Award. Mr Bergin appeared for defendant, and stated that Mr Perreau had always kept a holiday book previous to the five in April of last year, which destroyed his business premises.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the first charge.

On the second charge Mrs Barton was called on behalf of plaintiff, and stated that she had been employed by Mr Perreau, but had since left. She said that she had received 30s weekly, and had been about five months in defendant’s employment-. She had served behind the counter, waited at the tables, and helped in any washing up to be done. Miss Skellen was similarly employed. Mr and Mrs Perreau also served. They had been visited three times by the secretary of the Union, twice before Christmas, and once after.

The Inspector of Awards pointed out that Mrs Barton, cither as a general or counter hand should have received £1 15s, with a bonus of 6s 6d.

Mr Bergiu stated that the two women had been employed as house-maid-waitresses. lie stated that Mr Perreau received a copy of the new award on an occasion when he was leaving Foxton for a short period, and that on his return he paid his employees the back pay due to them at the new rates.

Mark E. Perreau stated that from September last until February he had employed Mrs Barton as a housemaid-waitress. Miss Skelleii was also similarly employed. He had not considered them as being counter hands. He said that the Secretary of the Union had been around twice, and had gone into the question as to work and payment, and had told witness that lie was paying them Cd over the award rate. Witness had not deducted tlie Od from the wages. Previous to going into his temporary premises be had kept a cook, but he found he could not cook meals in the temporary premises, as they were too small. The two young ladies did the work required. He considered he was paying the right wages. He had given them back pay when he received the new award notice. He was president of the Manawatu Tea Rooms Association, and had inquired as to what other places were paying, and had paid the some. When the last award notice came out he did not receive it until some days after it was issued. The Secretary had told him on this occasion that lie was not paying his employees what was required to be paid. Mr Perreau said he did not know about the Bonus, but lie was quite willing to pay whatever the employees were entitled to. In connection with the holiday book, he said that he had always kept one previous to the fire. On shifting

into his temporary premises (one room) he bad had a good deal of trouble, and the matter had been overlooked.

The Magistrate said that he was not satisfied that the employees came under the counterhands section of the award. He said that certain sections of the award had certainly been broken, but he dal not consider them severe’breaches, and also that some consideration should have been made in view of the fact that Mr Perreau had been burnt out, and that he was working under difficulties.

Defendant was convicted and fined £2, with costs £l.