MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23131, 21 September 1940, Page 15

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

♦ FRIDAY (Before Mr E. C. Lewey, S.M.) LIQUOR NEAR DANCE HALL Fines of 10s each were imposed on William Alfred Bedelph and Ernest. George Williams for having liquor near a dance hall. ~ Sub-Inspector E. T. C. Turner said the offence was committed at Halsweu near a dance hall at which the police could not always be present. Complaints about the conduct of some people outside the dances had been made in the district. The Magistrate said this type ot offence was becoming too common and more severe penalties would have to be imposed. CASE DISMISSED A charge of careless driving against Henry David Wilson, for whom Mr H. Harman appeared, was dismissed. It was alleged that Wilson drove across an open trench where men were working. TRAFFIC OFFENCES The following fines, with orders to pay costs unless otherwise stated, -were imposed for offences against the Iraific regulations:— . , , _ , Cycling on footpath; Richard Frederick Allen, 10s. Unlighted bicycle; Thomas Lilians Kennedy, convicted and discharged, : William Richard Peebles, 10s. No warrant of fitness: Ralph George Bailey, costs only; Millicent Cock, os; James Arthur Hay, costs- only. Failing to give way; Bernard Michael Scollard, £3. _ , Careless driving: Henry Lestley Hecc costs only: Florence Tuck, 10s; Colin Thomas Wilson, £2 (no warrant of fitness, ss). Negligent riding; James Wilfred Whitlow, costs only.

THEATRE EMPLOYEE’S. CLAIM Claims were brought against Christchurch Cinemas, Ltd., by the Labour Department, and a former employee of the company, alleging that the employee was wrongly classified and wrongly ; paid. The award in Question was the New Zealand Motion Picture Operators’ Award, 1939. Mr S. E. McGregor acted for the Labour Department, and Edward Holmes Ward, the former employee, was represented by Mr K. G. Archer. Mr McGregor said that it was purely a test case. The charge was that the defendant company had employed Ward as a motion picture operator m a continuous picture show and paid him £3 16s a week instead of £5 los as prescribed. Ward himself £54 12s, arrears allegedly owed over 28 weeks. , , _ , It was explained that at the Grand Theatre there is continuous screening from IT a.m. until 10.30 p.m., and the operating is done in two shifts, by two men each time. The question was whether Ward was an operator or an operator’s assistant, Mr McGregor said, and he submitted that any person m charge of the projection room was an “operator.” Ward in evidence said that he was in charge of hia shift, and responsible for screening the picture and producing the sound, care of the plant and repairs to the film. Mr C. S. Thomas, for the defendant, submitted that Ward was only an assistant. There were reports on the condition of the films to be submitted to the film exchanges, and he had never prepared these. All the apparatus was the responsibility 6f the man in charge of the other shift, and the manager (Mr R. J. R. Sutton) had in fact told Ward that all the plant was in the care of the other man, and if Ward had ever done anv advanced work it was against Mr Sutton’s instructions, said Mr Thomas. Further, when Ward had actually been in control, for one fortnight, the change in his status had been recognised by the payment of £5 15s a week. After evidence had been heard on the facts and conditions,, the Magistrate reserved his decision. ’