THE EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4192, 27 August 1874, Page 3

THE EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT.

The prosecutions which lately took place at Hokitika under this Act have been followed by others in Greymouth, where three of the principal drapery firms, Messrs. Thomas and Mcßeath, Messrs. Manson and Co., and Messrs. Smith and Barkley, were summoned. The following are the reports of the cases furnished by the local papers ; Police v. Thomas and Mcßeath. —The defendants were charged with a breach of the above Act by employing a female in their shop after the hour of two o’clock in the afternoon of Saturday, 15th inst. Sergeant Moller, the Inspector appointed under the Act, proved going to the shop of the defendants on Saturday at half-past four, and seeing a young girl trimming a hat in a i;oom adjoining the shop. Ho called again at seven o’clock, and the girl was still at work. Mr. Perkins, who appeared for the defendants, insisted that the charge should bo confined to some fixed time. The Court ruled that a definite hour must be adhered to. The police then elected to give evidence upon the first visit of the Inspector to the premises of the defendants.

Elizabeth Rutledge said she was employed by the defendants as a milliner, and she was at work on Saturday when the last witness entered the shop. She sometimes did other work, such as serving in the shop when required; and she was engaged by the week. The defence, as argued by Mr. Perkins, was that the law was not intended to apply to cases such as the present. The Act was passed with the laudable intention of protecting females from the evil effects of the competition of any proprietor of factories, large work-shops, and the like ; where mere children were oftentimes subjected to barbarously oppressive treatment. But it could not refer to light employments, such as the defendant’s work was, any more than it could apply to female clerks in Government telegraph offices, or even to barmaids, to whom the Act did not allude.

. The Court : It is coming in that direction. . Mr. Perkins ; The Act was clearly unworkable, and its provisions could easily be avoided, by the employers keeping their people at work only within the prescribed hours, and employ-' iug them on contract or piece-work afterwards. If the law was to be interpreted in such an arbitrary manner, a husband dare not employ his wife in his own shop without subjecting himself to a penalty. The law, as it stood, resembled that passed for the purpose of preventing Sunday trading, and, like it, would be most mischievous in its operation, if the Court did not, by their decisions, protect the public. Mr. Perkins concluded by moving for a dismissal of the charge, as no offence had been proved under the section of the Act prosecution relied upon, and that it was not proved that Miss Routledge could not have the half-holiday, without loss of wages, which the law insisted upon forcing on her, had she chosen to take it.

His Worship said the argument of counsel that the Act did not apply to the present case, was not upheld. The Act was a Colonial Act, and had a general application. The Bench considered the law was made for a praiseworthy reason, namely, to do away with the right of employers to oppress a certain class of employees who suffered from long hours at laborious work, because circumstance* rendered them unable to protect themselves. A nominal penalty would meet the present case, but the law was there, and until it was altered or repealed, it would be administered. The defendants were fined ss. with costs. Police v. Manson & Co.—This was a similar charge to the last, except that two girls were discovered illegally earning an honest living in the present instance. It was admitted that the girls were at work on the premises during the hours prohibited. Mr. Perkins, for the defence, reiterated his arguments in support of a dismissal, and raised a technical point as to an informality in the information as laid.

Inspector Hickson, to this, said it was competent for the Bench to permit an amendment in any information, and if Mr. Perldns would press his point, the Court would be asked to amend the present information. Mr. Perldns then contended that, on the evidence, the article the defendants’ milliners were working at, was not for sale or trade literally, because it was purchased before it came into the milliner’s hands, and it—a lady’s hat—was merely being ornamented to suit the taste of the purchaser. Counsel was proceeding to refer to a case recently disposed of at Hokitika, but

The Court refused to be guided by any decision of another Magistrate. If counsel could cite any higher authority than that Court, he would be listened to; but judges differed and made mistakes, therefore, the ruling of one Magistrate was no precedent for the action of another.

Mr. Perldns again raised the point that the employee could have had her half holiday if she had applied for it. The Magistrate said the fact was admitted that no holiday was given, because the gilds were found at work after the hour when work should cease. The point raised was an exceedingly technical one, and need not have been discussed at such length. Divested of the extraneous matter imported into the case, the plain fact was that the law had been broken, and a penalty must be inflicted. The defendants were fined ss. with costs.

Police v. Smith and Barkley.-—This was a similar charge to the two pj-eceding ones. The defendants, to save the time of the Court, pleaded guilty, and were fined Is. with costs.