EMPLOYING FEMALES AFTER HOURS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 395, 21 February 1880, Page 2

EMPLOYING FEMALES AFTER HOURS.

(From the New Zealand Timos.)

Messrs Kirkcaldie and Stains, drapers, were charged with .a breach of the Employment of Females Act by keeping a dressmaker at work after 2 p.m. on the afternoon: of Saturday, February.7. Mr Stains, who appeared for the firm pleaded not guilty, ; Sergeant Anderson, Inspector under the Act, deposed to having gone into the workroom at Messrs Kirkcaldie and Stains ■on the .afternoon of the 7th inst, and found Tinney at work there. Witness ■had previously cautioned defendants not to keep their females at work after 2 p.m. .on Saturday. Elizabeth Tinney deposed that she was in the workroom when Sergeant Ander? son came in. The work had been finished ■at two o ( clock, and she was standing up pinning a piece of tape on a dress to hang it up by. She was the only one in the room.

The defendant stated that on this day wofk had ceased at 2 p.m., and the room waa'sivept, and the chairs all upon the table.

The Resident Magistrate said the offence appeared to be a slight one, and he would dismiss the information on the ground of the evidence being insufficient to convict, He wished the public to know, however, that ho intended to rigidly enforce the proyisions of the Act. The same defendants were then charged with a similar offence on the afternoon of Saturday, February 7, and pleaded guilty. .. Sergeant Anderson deposed to having gone into the millinery-room at the back of the shop, on-the afternoon of the day in question, aud found several girls at work there. Ho asked for their names, butMv Stains said) "Don't give your names."

Edith flrace, one of the girls, corroborated thiMvide'nce. ■ There were four girls in the room, She had ceased working about five minutes,

For the defence, Mv Stains said that the millinery room was merely a continuation of fie show-room and he did not think it cariie under the meaning of the Act. The hands employed in it were liable to be called on at any time to attend to customers.

Mr Mansford having looked at the Act decided this objection against defendants. He said 011 this occasion lie would inflict a fine of 20s, and costs. The full penalty was £SO, and in any cases coming before Jiim after that day lie would inflict the full penalty,, • ' • John Coogan, tailor, Willis-Street, was then similarly charged, and pleaded not guilty.

Sergeant Anderson deposed to having found Miss KatoLaughton there at work at 2. 45 011 the afternoon of February 7. • Kate Laughtoir gave, corroborative evidence.

The defendant said work was finished at 2 p.m., and lie was not aware he had to see that all his hands left the place at that time,

A fine of 20a. and costs was inflicted. A similar information against Madame Da Launay, milliner, was then heard. Sergeant Andersoti proved' that when he went to the establishment on the afternoon of the 7th inst; he found several young ladies at work there. Miss Seage? corroborated this evidence, and the same penalty was inflicted as in previous cases. Charles Hill, hatter was then similarly charged, and Sergeant Anderson proved that the offence occurred on the afternoon of the 7th instant. He found some girk actually at work in the place. Two of tho girls who were called- deposed that they had been working for themselves on piecework.

De'endant said lie had given imperative orders that \vork was to cease at two o'clock on Saturdays, but he happened to lio away on this particular afternoon. The girls were waiting for their books to ■bo made up, alid if working, were sewing for themselves. Mr Mansford considered that as defendant was away he should leave some one in charge to carry out his instructions. The same penalty would he inflicted. James Smith, Te Aro Houso, was then charged with a similar beach of law on the 14th instant, He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by-Mr Ollivier, Sergeant Anderson deposed to visiting the establishment at five minutes to three on the date named. There were two girls at work there then.-

By Mr Ollivier: Witness was aware that Mr Smith employed a much larger number than two,

The two younsr ladies in question were then called, but did not appear. In answer to the bench, Mr Ollivier said Mr Smith had told them to be present, but it appeared that they were very reluctant j;o appear in Court, and one was extremely nervous. He asked if the one who was the hast nervous of the two would be sufficient.

Mr Mansford said no, he would have them both there. He could not allow summonsesio be disobeyed in that way. He should adjourn the oase till next day to give the witnesses another opportunity of attending/and if they did not do so he would issue warrants for their arrest,

MtEACH OF LICENSING LAWS, Nehemiah Guthridge was charged with permitting a barmaid to be at work! behind the bar of his hotel (Barrett's) after 11 o'clock on the night of the 7th instant. He pleaded not guilty, : - Sergeant Anderson deposed to a vouna .woman being behind the bar i1.45,p.m on the niiht. in, question. . Superintendent James; Was' she at work? 1

WitnmiWell sheliada corkscrew in her,hand. (Laughter.) 1 "i : tofwfr? sistor-in-lftw .to the defendant, doposed that she' was ..She was riot a barmaid, but was merely biva visit to her-brother-m-law.: . - " • The^informationwas,dismissed. J. Isaacs was tjiencharged with permitpg two parmaiijs to remain itt the

bur of the Star Hotel after 11 o'clock on the evening of February 7. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Fitzlierbert.

Sergeant Anderson deposed ; to- having seen, the, girls in the bar'after the prescribed H6ul'. -*~ ' ; .

Alice Osmund deposed that she was in ' the bar up to nearly 12 o'clock, on the night of February 7. She was not obliged to be there, but was there of her own free . ■ will. She knew that she'could leave at' 11 if she liked. ■ , For the defence it was urged barmaids had been instructed not to main in the bar after U; and• that* they vwere only there'of their own choice.' f MrMansford said the landlords must * do more than Jhis; they must see that the barmaids leave at the proper hour. • Mr Fitzherbert; And I suppose he must put the barmaids to bed, too, your Wor- ■ ship. (I<Qud laughter,) Defendant was ordered to pay a fine of 20s. and costs, his Worship intimating that on another occasion the full penalty, . £2O, would be inflicted,. W, J, Seccombe (Metropolitan), J. R. Brown (Criterion),'and J. Lichtscheindl (Empire), _were„each charged with the same offence, and were dealt with in a similar manner.