(Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) BBUNKEN NESS.
A fust offender, who had been arrested in an inebriated condition on tho secor.fl northern express the previous night, failed to answer to his bail, and j;a fine of 20s waa inflicted.
EE2ACH OF THE PRINTERS* A()T,
James A. Sandoe appeared on a charge of failing to put his name and address on a book printed by bim, as required by tho Printers' and Newspapers' Registration Act.
The same defendant was further charge! with failing to register his printing presß in accordance with tho provisions of the Act mentioned.
Mr A eland appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to both counts. In regard to the second charge, counsel said that defendant admitted that he was not. registered till June 16th, but that did not imply a plea of guilty. The information whs not laid till June 22nd.
Constable Alfred Brown said thafc on June 14th he interviewed Mr Sandoe on the matter and showed him the booklet, and dofendanfc said he knew nothing about it. On the following day be admitted to Sergeant Fonhy that he had printed some of it. Further questioned, defendant said that he was not aware that his place had to be registered under the Printers' and .Newspapers' Registration Aot.
To tbe Bench—lfc was only on the seoond occasion that he admitted printing part of the booklet.
Sergeant Fouhy said thnt defendant's name was at the end of the book, but only in the shape of an advertisement for printing.
Cross examined by Me Acland—lt had come out at a previous case that another printer had published part of.the pamphlet. Defendant had immediately registered on being told of his omission.
Sergeant Fouhy, in corroborating the evidence of the previous witness, said that defendant admitted printing tbe book. The informations were laid under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act.
Mr Acland said that as far as the unregistered press was concerned, the information was not regarding any particular date. The information said that the defendant was merely charged with being the owner. The information was laid on June 22nd, and on that date the press was registered. Mr Acland referred to the steps defendant had. taken to remedy his omission to register under the Act when acquainted of the necessity therefore. He Leld that the advertisement at the end of the book was sufficient compliance with the Act.
His Worship did not agree with this view.
Mr Acland further submitted that it was at anyrate notification of the printer's name and the place of printing. It was complying with the Aot in spirit, if not in thorough legal form. It was only a technical breach, and he cited what he regarded as similar eases in which steps for prosecution had not been taken. The Act was purelj a safeguard against offensive publications.
His Worship said that he .would not draw the deduction that the advertisnsent had been put at the end of the book in lieu of an imprint. JohnSwanson deposed that he had told Sandoe to print part of the book for him and had told him that he could use the space at the end for an advertisement tor himself. When he saw the books in printera' form, he thought that there was not an imprint in compliance with the Act, bat afterwards satisfied himself that the advertisement would suffice.
His Worship said that the advertisment, however, did not state that Sandoe printed the book
In reply to Sergeant Fouhy, the witness said that he hid not given evidence when a similar charge was preferred against himself. They meant to keep the law.
Sergeant Fouhy contended that in regard to the first information the Act had & retrospective power of six months. He held that the evidence clearly disclo3ed an offence.
Mr Acland said that the prosecution in regard to the second information should not have been brought. The defendant was registered under the Factories' Act, and when told that that was not sufficent registration, he had at once complied with the Act.
His Worship held that in regard to the second information there was a reasonable doubt, and he would give accused the benefit of it. Section 4 of the Act embodied publication < for dispersion, and there was no evidence of such. In regard to the other case, it was a quasi-criminal offence, and a person was supposed to know the law. It remained with the police if they desired to do so to amend the information. He held that there were sufficient grounds to entitle him to dismiss the case. CIVIL CASES. In the case of R. Bell v GL W. Burrowes, claim £2, judgment was given for plaintiff. W. B. Willis sued A. V. GL Chandler for Xl 2 103. Mr Kennedy appeared for plaintiff aud Mr Acland for the defendant.
Mr Acland asked for an adjournment for a week to which plaintiff's counsel oonsented on the payments of coats. William Coohr&ne sued John Mortis for jeso 19s 7d. Mr Buohanan'appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Crisp for the defendant. There was a counter claim for £18 6s Bd. Counsel gave detailed particulars of the case, which was an action between employer and employee. William Cochrane, the plaintiff said that he had been employed by the defendant as feeder on hia threshing machine,! at so much per thousand. There was no arrangement as to pay except at Union rates. He threshed some time in the Ashburton district and then went on to Timaru. He thought the amount he had claimed for time while going to Tiinaru was reasonable. He had to steer the machine and claimed 7b a day for the time token. He detailed the work that was dona in Timaru. He quarrelled with the men on the machine, but the quarrel was patched up. He thought he was justified in leaving the machine whenever he wanted to, and also that he could be discharged at any time. That was the custom among men working on threshing machines, merely handing in their time when they wanted to leave. He had been paid £8 on account of his claim. The hours stated in his claim were obtained from the engine driver. Sixty-seven hours were worked for Morris. All the men employed on the threshing machine at Timaru were paid at bo much per thousand Cross-examined—He had heon employed on threshing machines before. Th 9 feeder had to do the steering. The agreement had been made on the Wakanui Road. There was no understood arrangement that he should work for the season. There were several maohinos in the district paying 14s per thousand. It waa not, so far as he knew, customary for the driver and feeder to always go with the machine. He did not know whether men who left without notice had to forfeit anything. He had not sold any pigs because he was going 4m the machine for the season, and would not have any time to look after them. It might be the rule in Ashburton for the wages at so much per thousand to count the time spent in shifting the machine. He was the only man on the machine who, as far as he knew, was making a charge for shifting the machine. He was sometimes a quarrelsome individual, but was not always under the influence of liquor while working on the machine. He was not too drunk to work. If the engine driver stated the hours worked by Morris to be fifty hours he supposed that would be correct. To Mr bucbanan—lt was a different matter shifting the machine from place to place to a two-day journey to Timaru. Mr Crisp said that he contended that the contract was for the Beason. The engagement of men on threshing machines greatly differed but the general practice was for the driver and the feeder to engage for the whole season and the stated reasons why j that should be so. The relations between the parties were those of master and servant and be held that if the plaintiff bad been dismissed without notice he would hays had good grounds for an action for damages. Great inconvenience had been caused by the departure of the plaintiff and he held that he was responsible for breach oil contract. , The defendant said that the engagement was that the plaintiff was to come on as bandcutter for the|season, at 13s all round. No payment was allowed for shifting, as he had never given plaintiff permission to leave. At the period when plaintiff first left the machine it would hare been a difficult matter to get another man to take Ms place. It; was the feeder's duty to steer the machine. „ Cross examined by Mr Bucbanan.—He thought that Uochrane undeitood that he was working on a different footing to the other men on the machine except the driver, In the matter of shifting the
' engine he did not think a two day's journey toTimaru was a different matter to shifting fromfar'Hto farm in tho Ashburton district. When the machine had made the sarce tripn the previous year he had given tbe feeder a fow shillings but it hud not boon asked for. Ho could not soy for certain thatnny threshing hud been lost through Cochrane being absent. James MoVay, with thirty-four years' experience of threshing machines, said that drivers and feeders were engaged for the season, but there was Bob such a hard and fast rule in regard to ihe other men. Ho remembered that when the machine was at Eskbank near St. Andrews on April 7th, Cochrane went to St. Andrews about midday, spying thafc he would he back that night Witness was in charge of the machine, and had not given permission for the plaintiff to go away . for several days. They were waiting at Eskbauk for coal, which arrived on the day Cochrane went away. Cochrano did not commence work till the middle of the following week, and the machine then shitted. The delay was solely due to Cochrane's absence. The country in which they were required a skilful steerer, as it was rough and hilly. Fifty hours was the time occupied in threshing Morriß* peas. If he had to leave the machine for some urgent reason about the middle of the season, he thought that he would be liable for damages. Going to Timaru -was an extra long shift, and drivers and feeders were paid extra wages, because they were working while they wera shifting. He had never in his experience received special payment for time occupied in shifting.
James Malcolmson also gave evidence. After counsels' addresses His Worship said it was, according to the evidence, not customary to pay for shifting the machine. He then dealt seriatim with the items of the claim and gave judgment for the plaintiff for .£43 Is lid. In the matter of defendant's counter-claim, His Worship hold that something should be allowed as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the misconduct of a responsible employee. Ifc would be hard to assess tho actual loss, but he would set it down nominally at <£5, making the full judgment £6 Is Bd, to be deducted from the amouut awarded t^ Cochrane on the claim. Costs wore allowed plaintiff on the claim, and defendant on the counter-claim.
Frank Bull (Mr Buchanan) sued Nicholas Fitzgerald (Mr Acland) for .£3 16s 6d.
The claim was for a balance of wages alleged to be due. After the evidence of the parties to the action had been heard, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £1 lls 3d with cost s.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6621, 14 July 1905
MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6621, 14 July 1905
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.