MILKMAID NOT A WORKMAN.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLII, Issue 9566, 28 July 1921, Page 6

MILKMAID NOT A WORKMAN.

DECISION ON HER. STATUS.

A King's Bench Divisional Court was asked to decide whether a milkmaid was an agricultural labourer, and therefore entitled to receive the minimum rate of wages laid' down by the Corn Production Act of 1917. Mr Roland' Oliver said m this ' case a Chester farmer employed girls to milk cows m their spare time, paying them 12s each per week. This was below the minimum rate laid down by the Act of wages for workmen m agri- | culture. The Justices before whom the farmer was prosecuted for not paying the minimum wage refused to convict, but the Agricultural Wages Board appealed against tHe refusal!. Counsel pontended that agriculture had a wider meaning than the mere cultivation of the ground, and the milking of cows was an agricultural pursuit. Mr Justice Darling said there was once a milkmaid all forlorn who milked the cow with a crumpled horn, who was kissed by a man whose' clothes left much to be desircdV Did the man kiss a workman under the Corn Production Act ? | Mr Oliver said the girl was a farmer's daughter. Under the Act she was a workman, if she was old enough. Mr Powell, K.C., for the farmer, contended that milking cows had nothing to do with the cultivation of the land. The Court dismissed the appeal. The Lord Chief Justice said milkmaids did not work on the land^ and" if they held tLat milkmaids^ were workmen within the Act, it would have the effect of increasing the price of milk. He was surprised that the Agri l culture Wages Board should have^ sought to bring the case within the purview of the Act.