POLICE COURT.-This day.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3391, 13 June 1881, Page 2

POLICE COURT.-This day.

(Beforo R. C. Harstow, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. — Two persons were punished for this offence. Disorderly. — John Weston, for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, was fined 20s and costs, or in default 43 hours' imprisonment with hard labour. Larceny.—James McGourly was charged with tbe larceny of a coat, a pair of trousers, and a vest, valued at £3 Is Cd, the property ef Thomas Mooney, Great Barrier.—Sergeant Gamble said he was not acquainted, with the particulars of the case. Mr Pardy was absent on duty, and Constable Jones bad not yet returned.—Prisoner objected to the remand. He knew nothing of the larceny.—Remanded till Friday.

Employment of Females Act,

Jane McLaughlin was charged with a breach of the Employment of Females Act Amendment Act, 1875, section 8, by not having notices posted in conspicuous places in her workshop, specifying tbe hours of employment therein, at Auckland on June 4th.—Mr Laishley appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty.—Serjeant Richard Gamble, the officer appointed to carry out the provisions of the Act in this district, deposed that he went to tbe premises ot the defendant on May 10th. He warned her that tbe notice must be put up. On the 4th Jane, he paid another visit to Miss McLauglin'n shop. The defendant informed birn that the notices had not been posted up. He did not go into the workshop, and did not see any females at work.—Mr Laishley cqotended that the information was bad, auci that the case must, therefore, fall through, The information did not say that the person in charge of tbe workshop had failed to put up the necessary notice in the room, ■"gain, it was not stated in tho information nor yet proved by the Sergeant that tbo defendant had females in her employ. For all the Court knew, the workshop might have been an empty one, and the Act certainly did not refer to an empty room. —His Worship held that the word " workshop " was sufficient.—Mr Laishley quoted from Mr Justice Johnston to show that nothing in the information should be left to presumption or inference. There was nothing in the in forma-1 tion before the Court to show that Jane McLaughlin was an employer of female labour, and no allegation to that effect. He contended that the information must contain allegations on ever}' point mentioned in the indictment. There were two allegations wanting : the first was that tbe defendant, Jane McLaughlin, was an employer of female labour; and the second, that Richard Gamble was the officer appointed by His Worship to carry out the provisions of the Act. The fact that Sergeant Gamble's appointment was put iuto Court as evidence did not remedy the latter defect. If necessary he could comment on the form of the summons, which had no name stated in the body, but he bold thai; that was not necessary, as tbe objections! already raised must prove fatal. He pointed, out that there was no attempt whatever on the part of tbe Sergeant. while giving evidence to show that Miss McLaughlin was an employer of female labour.—Mr Barstow said he would take the second objection first. It was not necessary to state in the information the powers of the sergeant appointed to carry out the Act. Any person might lay the information, and not merely Sergeant Gamble. In reference to the other objection, he pointed out that the word "workshop " waa used in the Act, and therein defined the wording of the clause ruuing "as where there should be any factory, workshop, or other place where females are employed." It was for the defence to show that the place was not a workshop under the Act. ".Workroom " was mentioned in. the original Act, and " workshop " in tbe amendment. The summons was correctMr Laishley said it had cot been proved that Miss McLaughlin had not seat in a return. —His Worship said Sergeant Gamble had already deposed that site had not.— Mr Laishley contended that not a little of evidence had been given to prove that Miss. McLaughlin was an employer of females. The Sergeant bimaelf admitted that he had not been into the work-room, and hnd,not, seen people employed there. It was his duty to have gone into the room, and not to stand iv the shop, take a lady's word, and subsequently use it to catch and prosecute her.—His Worship admitted the lack o;l evidence on this point and dismissed the case. FURTHER CASES. George Foster pleaded guilty to a similar charge. The Sergeant came and asked to see his notice, and he paid he had not one: written. At his request tha Sergeant wrote oue out for him, nnd he had it put up immediately afterwards, but notwithstanding this he received a summons several days later.—Sergeant Gamble said he had given the information, but as it was used against him, he would not give any information in future outside his own office,— His Worship pointed out that defendant had not sent iv tbe necessary returns, although 35 other establishments bad done so. The law looked upon the offence as a serious one, and the Act gave him the pewer to inflict a penalty of £50. He would, however, only fine the defendant in, the noniiual|suin of 3s with 7s costs. John Trenworth was also charged with the same offence. He pleaded guilty, but was not aware that he had been infringing the law. He had the notices posted before he received the summonses. His Worship said the inatteir had been fully announced. in the papers, and every kind of warning given. Defendant must pay 3s and 7s costs.

_l John S. Cobley pleaded not guilty to a similar charge. Sergeant Gamble said that when he called defendant was not in, but; bis wife shewed witness some papers which she said were notices that he hsid been, writing to post up. His Worship said in. this case there was evidently a misunderstanding, and it would be dismissed. William Garrett was then charged with a similar breach of the same Act.—Defendant pleaded not guilty, and pointed out that he was only one of the firm.—His Worship said, if defendant liked, he could, have each member of the firm summoned and fined for the samo offence. They had been mercifully treated by having only one summoned.—lt appeared, from Sergeant; Gamble's evidence, that notices had been. placed in the workrooms, but they made no reference to short hours on Saturday.— His Worship said the summons was therefore incorrect, as the defendant was charged; with having no notice posted np. The case would be dismissed.

This was all the business,