POLICE COURT, DARGAVILLE.

Wairoa Bell, Volume V, Issue 197, 12 May 1893, Page 2

POLICE COURT, DARGAVILLE.

TUESDAY—May 9th 1893. (Before Messrs J. M. Dargaville and F. Norton J’s P.) J. Heron was charged on the information of Const, Scott with being drunk and disorderly on the Dargaville racecourse, and was fined 5/ and 24/ costs. Joseph Palctti was charged with being drunk and disorderly in a railway carriage. Mr N. A. McLeod appeared for the defendant and objected to the information on the ground that it contained two offencss The Bench thereupon dismissed the case. Joseph Paletti was further charged by Const. McCoy with a breach of the Public Works Act by placing a piece of timber across the railway line. Mr McLeod again appeared for the defence and urged first that the information disclosed no offence as the Act said “ throwing ” not “ placing ” ; a piece of timber might he placed on a railway line and he no offence. This plea was ineffective and Counsel then urged that the defendant was improperly before the Court, as the summons had been impu'operly served, insomuch that the person laying the information had also served the summons. The Bench accepted the objection and dismissed the information. Alfred Patteson was charged with a breach of the Police Offences Act in allowing his horse to wander in Hokianga road, Dargaville. Defendant pleaded ‘ Guilty ’ ard was fined 5s and costs 2s. He asked for time as he had no money. The Bench said that a man without os in this district was a curiosity, hut as the police were favourable they gave him a week to pay it iu. INSPECTOR OE FACTORIES v. KAURI TIMBER COMr >K A. Smith, manager for the Kauri Timber Company, was charged, on the information of Sergeant Black, Inspector of with a breach of the Factories Act IS9I in that he employed on Good Friday four hoys under eighteen years of age namely, Alex Lyons, George Bradley William Burgess and Jerry O’Brien. Mr McLeod appeared for the defence and urged that the information disclosed no offence. The employment of boys on Good Friday was no offence ; it was not allowing a holiday that was an offence under the Act. For instance say there were two factories A. and B. ; ahoy working io A could work in B on Good Friday without offence. The offence was not iu working a boy hut in refusing to give him a holiday. The Bench dis-illowed the objection.

A plea of Mot Guilty was then entered. 4/ex Lyons, aged 14 years, sworn, deposed that he was working regularly ar, the Kopuru mill before it stopped. He started work there at seven o’clock on Good Friday and knocked off at 6.20 p.m. The three other hoys named also worked through the day. He went to work as usual that morning, Mr Forsdiok, the submanager knew he was working and did not tell him to stop w_nk. He was working at one of the saws. There was no appearance of the other lads who had evidently been detained for lack of means of transit. Constable Scott sworn said that the defendant was manager of the Te Kopuru as well as the Aratapu mill, and was so on Good Friday last. He heard him give M r Forsdiok orders on the Thursday previous that the boys were not to work on Good Friday. This was the case for the prosecution Mr McLeod said defendant was charged with not allowing a holiday whereas it was pkuMy shown that he did allow the holiday. If anyone was to blame it was not the defendant hut Mr Forsdick. The Act was one of those brought into existence by a certain section of the communily and had been sc much talked of that he did not believe there was a boy under eighteen years of age in the Colony who did not know that he was entitled to a holiday on Good Friday. The Bench. —The fact of Mr Smith giving Mr Forsdick orders concerning the boys showed ihat he was responsible. IV. A. Smith , the defendant, said lie had general supervision over the Kopuru mill. Mr Forsdick was in actual authority locally on Good Friday. He (witness), on the Thursday previous, instructed him to dismiss the boys for Friday and Easter Monday. Mr Forsdick had the engaging of the men for the Kopuru mill. Witness’s duty was to inspect the machinery and see that

the work was turned out properly, Mr Forsdick was under his control. After a short consultation the Bench decided that the offence had been proved, but as it was the first offence of the kind in their knowledge the pienalty would he only a moderate one namely a fine of £1 for each of the four hoys and costs. Mr McLeod asked that the conviction might he written up and filed in case his clients chose to appeal. Dr. Norton here left, the Bench and A. E. Harding Esq. J.P., took his place. CIVIL CASES, _ IVMoore sj Patrick Nolan, claim £lO 3s lid. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. P. Nolan said he could make no offer, during last week he made only 7s 6d. He seemed generally opposed to a settlement. Mr J. M. Dargaville told the defendant that he had the reputation of being one of the best diggers and warned him that he was not telling the truth. Judgment had previously been given against him and the Bench now wanted to know when he would pay, Ordered to pay within five months, or go to goal for two months. Defendant, — Thanks. C. Cooke v W. Holford, Claim £6 ss. Mr McLeod for Plaintiff C. Cooke deposed that he started to work for defendant on 12th January and worked till 3rd February. He was engaged on the 10th January and defendant agreed to pay him 6s a day. Had several times applied for payment. He was a seaman and every seaman could paint. He vas away one day and late another of the twenty hut worked till six on SaturdaysIV. Holford said there was no mention of a rate of wages. Plaintiff would go to sleep daring work hours and wis only worth his tucker. The Bench—He looks to he worth more than that.

Judgment for £5 16s with costs 28s The other cases were adjourned to the 6th of June.