The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1903. PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXV, Issue 255, 26 November 1903, Page 2

The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1903. PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION?

In the Police Court on Wednesday oceurred an instance of the manner in which one of ow 'fnultidudinous statutory rejfula'tions may be used to inflict hardships and unmerited punishment on an innocent person. A dressmaker was proceeded against for allowing some of her apprentices to work in her factory or workroom after six o'clock in the evening without having first obtained a perjmit so to do from the Inspector of Factories. The fact .was admitted, but it was pointed out that in the case in question the girls were doing sewing for themselves —preparing fancy dresses to bo worn at the late Floral Fete in New Plymouth. Counsel for the prosecution urged that a conviction should be given, in order that other people engaged in the business mjjjlit lie slio.wn that they must see to it that the provisions of the Factories Act were observed in the entirety. The defence contended

that in construing the law the exact letter could not be strictly adhered to. The spirit and intention of the legislation was to remedy or prevent the many evils so prevalent in various industries in older countries, and it eould not be denied that in the Gaso of seamstresses particularly "sweating" a»d other ills had too often been rampant. To apply the Act in a case like the one under review, although technically a breach of the law may have occurred, was to strain after effect. The Magistrate he\d that tha Act intended that the workroom should bo actually uhtenanted within the hours specified, excepting in cases whore special permits had been obtained. Therefore, in this case there could be no tfiiestion that the law had been transgressed, though he recognised that it was unfortunate that the defendant should be submitted to such hardship under the circumstani-.es. ]t was necessary, however, that cases should occasionally be brought before the Court in order that the provisions of the Act might not bo overlooked. This argument no doubt is good, but it seems a matter for regret tlfat a case should have been brought under the peculiar circumstances attending the commission of the breach of the statute. As a result of what may be termed an act of charity, in that a number of girls were doing work (for themselves) to add to the attractions of an entertainment for a public benefit, they have placed their employer in a position which has subjected her to thi contumely of a Police Court conviction. Even had the Court displayed the magnanimity it could have shown by not recording a conviction it would not havp been so had ; but as it is—though the authorities cannot be blamed for taking action—it does seem that if some discretion is not exercised tradespeople will be subjected to a system of persecution that is most undesirable.