H.—ll

80

The Inspector of Factories s;ti> 1 his Department had instructed him not to ask for a heavy penalty, but he pointed out the opening there was for going back to " sweating " if such a thing were allowed to continue, as (although this did not apply in the present case) the woman could sublet Ihe work at " sweating " rates. The Stipendiary Magistrate said ii did m>! appear thai the defendants were in any way seriously to blame for the breach of the Act, but the offence was one which could !«■ easily comiritted, and might lead to must serious efforts to upset all the legislation which had been passed against "sweating." But as there was do intention of "sweating" in this case lie would only inflict a tine of 10s., and costs. A second charge preferred againsi the same linn by the Inspector of Factories, of knowingly exposing for sale a wire mattress and kapoo bed, the work for which was clone in an unregistered workroom, and not labelled with the label required to lie affixed by section 28 of tlie Act, was heard at the Magistrate's Court on the 18th September, 1907, by Mr. R. L. Stanford, S.M. The firm pleaded not guilty. The Inspector, in opening the case, said that, in view of the recent previous conviction against, the firm, his Department took a serious view of the matter, and he would endeavour to prove that the firm took every precaution to mislead the Department. Competition in prices, he stated, had led up to the charge, and the mode by which the firm carried on their business made it impossible for any other firm to pay an award wage, pay their way, and compete with this firm. The award provided that labour for this class of work should be paid for at the rate of Is. 3d. per hour. The beds were made in an unregistered factory, the owner of which, after the charges were laid, made application for registration, but as the present case was already in hand the application was refused. The worker in this case did not employ labour, and would have been under a disadvantage had he registered. The firm supplied the material for the beds, &c, and the man and his wife supplied the labour. The Inspector called the occupier of the unregistered workroom, who is an upholsterer, who said he had for the past four years made beds and mattresses for the firm, the last supplied being about six weeks ago. Had seen some of his goods on sale in the firm's shop during the past few weeks, and could tell they were his by the singular workmanship. The goods were not labelled as being made in an unregistered factory. The wire mattresses would cost about 3s. 9d. to make. His prices for the wire mattresses were not payable, but the kapoc mattresses paid well, and taking the two together they were payable. He did not know of any one else in Wanganui who was doing the same class of work as cheap as himself. Had now lost the firm's work. (To defendant's solicitor) : Was sure the kapoc bed (a 3 ft. one) he saw on the date of the information was one he had made. Did not on that day see one of the wire mattresses exposed for sale. The upholsterer's wife corroborated her husband's evidence. A former manager of the firm's furnishing department said that when with the firm, some eighteen months ago, he had not known any labels to be affixed to goods from the upholsterer's. The Inspector gave evidence that on the date of the information he visited the firm's establishment, and asked the manager to -.how him the wire mattresses made by the upholsterer in his unregistered workroom. The manager took him to the back and showed him one of the mattresses. It did not have a label on it. (To defendant's solicitor): The wire mattress was in a room under lock and key, but was nevertheless for sale. Defendant's solicitor said the firm admitted having the wire mattress on the premises, but held that it was not exposed for sale. Regarding the kapoc bed, he called the manager of the furnishing department, who said that there was no other mattress in the place made by the upholsterer mentioned but a cot one, which had been thrown up on top of the fixtures, and, being hid from customers by the dressed lines, would not have been sold. (To the Inspector): The bed was for sale, and would have been sold if specially asked for. Defendant's solicitor addressed His Worship at length, pointing out that the prosecution to succeed in their case would have to prove that the unlabelled goods were the product of textile or shoddy material. To say that the wire mattress answered to this provision was not common-sense. The Act was thus meant to apply more to sewing, such as pillow-slips, &C, than to mattressmaking, in. The Stipendiary Magistrate agreed thai a wire mattreso did not come under that head. Referring to the question of exposure, defendant's solicitor held that there was a distinction between having for sale and exposing for sale. The kapoc mattress and the wire mattress, he held, were out of sight of customers, and to be exposed for sale they should be where customers could easily see them. The Stipendiary Magistrate agreed that the wire mattress was exempt from the charge, but it was quite clear the kapoc mattress was for sale, and was placed on the higher shelf for convenience, from whence it would have been produced if any one wanted to buy it. It was not there for giving away. The defendants appeared to have cut the law very fine, but he would only inflict a fine of £5, with costs £2. On the grounds that the upholsterer had written to the Press stating he had been misunderstood, the firm was granted a rehearing. Practically the same evidence was taken, and the case was again decided in favour of the Department. The fine, however, was increased to £5 Iβ., in >rder to allow of an appeal being made. Notice of appeal was given, but not proceeded with. Christchurch. —(Shops and Offices Act): Six cases against a drapery firm (three for employing assistants on the statutory half-holiday, and three for employing shop-assistants overtime without a permit) were dismissed on the ground that, although the assistants had been given stocksheets to extend at home, it was done without the knowledge of the head of the firm.