LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 579, 6 August 1909, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

.<- SUPREME COURT. THE "JIU-JITSU" IN CUSTOMHOUSE QUAY. :A 'POLICEMAN:' APPEALS, i -"Aisscrbin'g that the- decision of the riingis- ■ trStoy '.in. 'convicting' him :of assault,' vwas errdttebuj in ;point of law, William . Joseph GiirdWer, police constable, brought ah.'appeal ■ before.;their Honours Justices. Cooper .-. and Chitjawn y«t*rd»y. \ - ' .'•'. • ' -Mr;;. Skerr'ctt.. K.C., with him • Mr. Sharp, a paired .for .the appellant,, and Mr; , Myers fqrjtiM respondent, : William Jpbh Phair, .-Biib^lrispcotor-of.-Potico,.-/■'.■ •■'.- .' : , . ... -. ■Oii 'Juno 2 last, tho appollanfc was coiiviotcd by ;A&:,:W.;G. Iliddc-11, S.M., on a'chnrgo-of; havirjg assa-ulted Florence Beatrice. llolfe. -''Not tiuilty." The occurrbhceiteoV place on the evening- of May '10,. andx-accordiug to evidence \iri:■ : tho Lower Coifity' : the. appellant and 1 , .two -VotWsr'.r.eoni6tab'!cs; Cwy and Watson," were practising "jiiwitsu holts" in Customhouse Quay, near :'tno i 'Grover.i)i«ci;t Life Insurance Oflico. -.'Jr. and'' Mrs. ; Rolf e canitv along, 7 and the 'former attempted to put nu end to'lvhat he' believed wisiial? street''iow. ■•: Ho . was alsp-;_recejved a couplo .-ofr sdvero ; •■■-■!-■ '.'<■•>■'■'■ ■'. ■•V-"-^.,':'"''^',-' I .'-' ; '.'■' In'^sbttuig.- out the, case for. tho Supreme Cour.ty-the magistrate supplkd the following facts.)- admitted-or. proved:—That tlie appel]M)t'f6ardiffor and . Constables' Clhy.'.and Watson had; visited -'fiv.o. hotels prior. to 7.15 o'clo'ck-oh tho evening of May/10,. and tho"ap'peHaut admitted haying had one dnnl;--o braii-dy or a brandy and" i»rt wino—in each hotel;' that, ahortly afterwards, at the corner'-., of Panama , Street ■arid'. Ctistonihouso -Quay; arid again near tho W she'd in Customlioiiio ,Quay. two sailors, James Ashbury ami Willittm and/Mr. and Mrs. -Rplfe sawiVtho appellant and Watson handhng_Clay in manner,; that Mr. and Jlrs. Bolfo appfoapiied Watson, arid Clay, tund'.'asljed appellant: and:.Watson;, to/give CliiT-fair play; and to-desist from- their rough treatment •■ that Clay: informed Mr. aiul Mrs, '".Rolfb ; :that 'Watson, 1 .'Gardiner,' and■;he were• .on'friendly'■ter«s;«aikltheji left -'the >cceno.; UiatWatsoh and .Gardiner/then placed themBolyps'ih 'a fighting attitude am] asked.thern, Fhy./thtey had interfered;- that afterwards Rolfe and: ■;Watson: commenced figfi'tttg) "that vVfhilo; ■'Watsqii'- arid were: fighting,--Mts. : ; Ptolfp .was';struck in 'the .face .andSfell to the .ground;'■ that ; Watson; and; 'Eolfe-rwere. engaged- together ; diiring ( ., : i..he whole of, the affray; that tho nian who waa. not^Eaged , with llolfe was the-person'.who ibruofc Mrs. ; RolW; that tho-' only, .men oncageil%it!hc affray were Watson,-Rolfo.jnd Garainer • that Watson did' riot strike. Mrs. Ro]fe;'4hat lwth Wateon and Gardiner: wore.; scetfißtriking at Mr. and Mrs. j '.uvd that'/'ifter the'affray .both '.appellant: \and ■ ~ - ■ .. :'h>y^;-'- : :? '■;■ '..-' ,■: Ml>: ■'• Sk'erretfc"' said: that the appeal • was on 1 poin't'of ilaw. "'Appellant's, sbntelice., did not. justify ah appeal on the/facts, and/the : magistral had deolined'. to' mcroaso: it to a 'month; the minimnm term-on which such an: jpppal was allowed; •Counsel'submitted 'M.inagistrate had- made; a' mistake m. wint of/fact in convicting the -.appellant,:, and ho ivMed'aleo-to establish the ma.ior.pr«poaition Mfrr-fhe're -was'no evidence upon wbioh he coiild:'properly convict'. Gardiner,.'Of".-assault;.- ' Coiiiieel. jvent on to', support his contention by'.;rcfer«nce;to tho evideriee ,taken m-tno. Malisfcrato's.CoTirt. ' ;. ■"'"' J : ' -' : ' • ■', w. " - Mr.-Sharp .addressed heSfing of; argument rfo'r :*he respondent was : ' adjourned until • this 'morning. I '.';: " ..: ■-. ■:'. ■-..' .^■DRISIiipTIQN' OF A : DISTRICT; COUR.T., ■■'■'. His/Henour , Mr^'. Justice Chapman heard yesipf dajf an applicationif or a writ ■ of, pro-; hibition- to be issued to'- the District. Court ofW«stland for !the stay of proceedings un* ' dcr.'&i; Order of adjudication, made'on' April 5 last;;.-The , .plaintiff•>TV-as ; 'Robertv''Johnsony, master .mariner, of .t7ellington, ; and:the .de- ■ fenUants, William Reeve Haselden, • Jsdge ■'of^th"^.lifetrict'''Cburt v; 6f ; .W*tl«Qia;*''Ef , neSt'' ■Bo^liijg, , Clork, ■'of ; .'that';;Court,..,;Wilfred ■■ Thomas ; Slee,-: Deputy/ Official at Westfiort, vof-w&tport,£ ;; vv;;'-'M.^' > : - : - '■:£}&*-:-?!i^ 'Mt.'M. : G. Dalziell appeared for.- plaintiff, -arid: ; Fell' for 'defendautsv—^^:'^:'}?;;:'^, Tnevstatoment filed by plaintiff, was that OnV ; Eebruary u .3, last,, peti- - tioiiai'ttie'District' Court to adjudicate plaintifhasja.bankrupt.' The; petition-was'served tipon'iplaintiff in/ Wellington .on, February if."■-•-■'"His isolicitqrs communicated ;with' the Clerk'"of.tho''D'istn6t'Court and--M'.lntyre's; BolicitOTS, .-stating . thai;.plaiiitiffcbuM.,not be'//presont-. ai- the..'Court .sitting,/.and ;also th;at, ! .ras. he ( had; been resident,in Wellington . for'-'two years,'/.steps would ■ bo. taken 'to set aside-'the "petition..:: A': ! month .Vla'te'r,■';' M'lnwrote'that, as plaintiff '.had not Jniade. any .offer .to settle, the claim; \thcy. ■wd,uld' ; : proceed with the bankruptcy petition : bbf6¥e'; the' District 'Court. The petition'was heafd;iand plaintiff adjudicated baiikrupt by ■fho< ; .Glerk ; of tho District Court; v Plaintiff had/:b'eßn resident ;;in .-.Wollinston' .for '■ two years >'and/upwards; ; imme(liatbly.: prior ;to: tho datoj'Of:the:petition; ; [Rβ 'therefore-: applied for-a/ t writ to .prohibit .defendants 1 from ;admih'i.st'ering his esfete'j or.;'taking/other-pro-ceedings 'under, the order of adjudication. "■'.' After argument, his Honour reserved judgmeht.U ">;'■ •..:■; ■;- : --".'• ■ .■•■■■■':■. -'./"vV :/../ ...•

;';:t-,;;.' ■■~; in (; y; : . : ■■-: ■ ■•^■/'v■. ■ -BANCO/^ATES."-;- , > ".]'. , Li At-a. .sitting- in:,Chambers..yostei'dayf,afternbon,: .their Honours 'Justices "Cooper , and Chapman arranged, dates .for- thei bearing of banco' cases as August .6, /v,.V. Andrewsj:;and...anotlier 1; . ci\se ortvappeal : |-'!JVr|3nday;.;'August. v Dayits,"' case foh ■ ■ Andrews ■■% i-.-Fan . T.i ; ;Naismith: anp. Company';; Sase, on;"appeal j,?je;i:Wi!.kcin- ; ning,nn./^ankru'ptcj;.'. ; " Tuesday, /August,i;lo:, Wnimeroia] ; ?,and'FarniersJ ''Olub 1 . tbn;'BqrQpgh^;: ; mptioti- to \ set aside'Saward j Masterton "liofpnglp v. ; ' Sullivan" and. another j mbtiOnf:to.iset>asidoV , aw;ardi'' i JJohnstbnvy. others,.casd on'i.appea_L'!rV'3y.c # dn^(&yyV-'Augnst' i -n : v.iiPl;pusß ; kvMbef; Liinit«d, ! ; qri(?inatii)g in'ons , ;?l^wis;,-T.'VErana ? 'BeTemia; .'Beckett "vi ■Dis'frict-'.liitfd'i^egirti'ar , ; •:-JJ'anpdon:. , y ! -:;:i\Velr ling'ton ,'■ .Harbburpßbafd";'; - M'Eldownoy. ( v. ; Wellington ./Harbour'.''; Board./. .:,.Thursdayi; August 12':, Smith'. y. ';:L'ainberti r case,' qn; : 'ap-; peal;'~ M !La.'Ughlaix; " v.,", M illigaii, .cas6--:.on,'.ap-. peal./:l , 'ridayi;-August' ; l3':..Ohennells ''(ind':"-an-' opT : emment"^ffsutan&--'(brfore , -:tffO'vg'u(igeiJ);'. Bitnrday,; ; -Ai3gnst' 141: Royriolde:. v: -A ttbrneyG'eri&ra'l ' jand^^^/others.'fj-Mofidaj'',; Aufiusfc;l6: Hpbli^vi'; 6dld.iVcase.i-on / appoal. , A!^i^t'':-l^VvW].bflrf6ss",v.:;Mihißter' , -for.'PuD'. ■'Wednesday;/ August: 18-:'iGanip-, p6al vriv^niori , :' Steam '■■ Ship '-jG6mpdhy' K lM;y&uisi*yf;'Au&si:l9:-.dott y': T Ji-üblip 'I'rustec;- originating.summons'.-. ]?riday.,;-Au-gust '20: :A]fordice..v. -Allardice and another, originatingi- suramohsi^Waipawa',:Borough V;. Daiinevirko'Borough'/ and others', special case.' , ;:;/ .:,:' ■: -.. ~ .-;/•■. :•■: ■-■■'r. , : i■; '/■■-..

' U€- : : '■ CRIMINAL LIST.^; ->; ■ Criiflinal:sessions of,, the Supreme.: Court commence ,on\ Monday, August ~,16.';, .The foljbwihg charges havp been, set,down for trial:.'.';. Arthur '■ Frederick -'' Wirasett (five charges), breaking and entering; and aiding aM: abetting.; David; Johnson, criminal aosanifj^Eichard.'ECenry.',Pratt; cattle,stealing;, George Quin, Douald Wilson,- Joseph Keen, and -Edgar John B. Clourli, theft,-;,- 'John Tiiicred, breaking and .entering; Mary: Ann Cttliingham, -.ne'geot -. of ..child; , Peter :.W_iJlia'&seSi Tjtifc,, assault'(two 'charge's). .jyitJijii.r teri'tVitp commit .actual, bodily, harm,; Colin Hector. Kempton and Virginia" Mary ;.Koini> toii.'felss declaration; I'V.incis Hamsoy, indfcent'act (Otaki); ffiromtt Kingi, r. crimin-. al bifebcc (Otnki); Alfred 'Binder, attempted .grievous: bodily .harm;' Albert' Charles WeingotL,' ■'theft jj "Harry Leo; breaking and entenrig.', : . , .; -. ' ..., ;'" : .::,',;--'.. ... . -"■■■.;'■.''.- COURT. - . J ' i Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) - ■,;an ■'engineer and "some-furs. -.' inchesting ■ legal; point. raised.' Another, ohirie of- knowinrly'harbouring unoiislpined weds woe heard in tho Magistrate's , Court) y<aterday' morning:. 'It. was preferred, against Occil Ha'j?bton,' third engineer of the Manafeiv.. ■■■■'■ ■ .- •'■••"■ ;: •■'■• l

' Tho facts (is stated by Mr.' Nixon, Collector of Customs, -.vero that when tho Manuka nrrivod from Sydney on Wednesday sho was searched. liv the quarters of tho third engineer a set of furs was found, tho value of which was £i.- : An endeavour was beinsr made to ,put down this form of petty smuggling. 'Defendant, who was' represented -by Mr. Meredith, pleaded not guilty, and his "Worship dismissed the information without .prejudice as tho prosecution had omitted* to put in the Customs Act and necessary technical evidence.'-. .:.■■'.■ •.:'•' ' ;

/ Later in tho day another information was laid,/»nd-defendant was called, on to answer to the same charge. . , :'. Mr. Meredith, for defendant, submitted that mens rca must, bo proved by -the prosecution since the-word "knowingly" was contained in the charge. Defendant had-not deliberately evaded payment of tho duty, for if he wished ho could havo concealed the fiirs, which, as it was, wero contained in an unlocked drawer. Another point was that by Section .3 of the Act, the-goods were not liable' for duty until the timo-.of importation, as defined by Section 30. Tho section named laid down that the place of importation was within the limits of the port at whioh it was intended to unship the goods. The-so goods were to bo landed at D.nnedin, and, if defendant's net of failing to declare them at Wellington constituted an of- , fence--under; tho section, it would bo impossiblo . for any man to have anything in his possession on '■. tho vessel, since, all, kinds of ;clothing were dutiable. .. ..Defendant then went into, tho: witness-box,, and.stated that he hud.no intention of evading the duty. If he had wished to he could have concealed thefurs." .When the Customs officers came into his cabin,-ho said to them: "Thoro , are some furs there, if they are con-' traband." He was taking the furs down to his mother at .Dunedin, and at Dunedin he would Ijdye shown them to tho tide-surveyor to see if. they were dutiable. '■' Mr.. Nixon argued that the goods were liable for, duty so soon-as they came within the waters of the Dominion.. . , His Worship iutiniated that he would take time to consider, the point raised, and would therefore reserve his decision until this morning..- ' :.:'-. ■' ■,'./ .-,.,.', ;, /.;■: ~THE:WIMSETT CASES. ... . The three remaining charges against' Arthur ■Frederick Wimsett, who was' ou Wednesday committed for trial on charges of being concerned, in' the Parcels Office burglary, wero heard yesterday. Tho- informations were as follow:-(l) That, on September.-15, 1907, he did receive' goods, the 'property of Faudet Phillips,-' knowing thorn' to have bten .dishonestly obWirieil.- ,(2) -That, on September'!, 1507,' he did"receiyo. goods,; the property of C. H. Dickin-■ son, knowing : them to ; have been dishonestly, obtained.;. (3) That on December U. 1907, he did-receive goods, the property of Whitcombo and' Tombs, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. ••' .' , ' " ■ ■ Mr.-'Myers appeared for-the. Crown and Mr,, Hielop, with Mr.-Pctherick, for the defence. . ".Evidence was'.iriven-. by Louis Whitcombe (manager for Whitcombe and Tombs), Percy Salmon;; Detective Andrews;"' Robert Edward Baylies, and Clifton Ilenry , Dickorson. Jaines. Hemingway identified some of' tho goods that had been found in Wimsett's house as those which: he had taken in the burglaries at - Whitcombo >and Tombs's, Tnudel Phillips and-Co.'s, and pielcerson,'and Co.'s. Hβ had taken them there and left some of them in his own tin trnnlc, and.others in,various parts of -the-house.. The fountain'pens ihatneouj-cd had ; in.his possession had. been given to.him bywitness,, who had' an idea that Winisett waβ selling, them. ,-. •'■.-■. ; ■ , Accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail ■was allowed in accused's "own recognisance of in addition to the ,£250 and two sureties .of £V 25 fixed in the previous cases. .'.' ■■", ■:';->■'/V! ~ INSOBRIETY. ."- ';. Four first.offenders for,.insobriety were fined 55., in defa-dlt 24 hours'•impr'jsonraent, and two others were convicted and'discharged.' George' Thwaites was convicted and fined 10s., in default 48: hours' imprisonment. ;. ' ; ;■": ; civil misiness., • •■;' '. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, 'S.M.) ■ '

;.;:;::.-■;; UNDEFENDED CJSES. '• Judgment for , ' plaintiff /by default' , of defendant wasi given in the following undefended cases:—Frederick Cooper iv..-William Fair"weathoiy 16s. 'll'd./cbsfF'Ss.'TnViiir-'HesToii'v;' James Williams, M 19s. 7d., costs 55.; Sargood, Son,- and Bwen, Ltd., 1 v. Harry,..Har]tley, X 22 ■is, /9d., costs £3 Is.; Ltd., Assignee,- and: E. W. Mills' "ahdl- .'po., Ltd., assignor, v. A..H. 195.-. lid'.;;', costs- M 10s, 6d.; William .Hice. : .v;,.Joiiathatf-AyiU:inson,' '£2',105.;- : costs 12s/; Dickerson and-Co;;.y. Thos. Neebit,il6:7s. 7d., costs. XI Ids. Gd. , ;; Richard ■S/ Rounthwaite v. Edward J. Falkinmv i 0 Cs., costs £1 Bs. 6d.j Wise and'pecble : v. Charles Evans, JSIO 55., costs JSI 12sV 6d'/; -Henry Fielder and Co/ , v. John , E. W"elsbyy'ii23..ss.; i ,-;costß6s.; Sargbod; : Son;.and Ewen v,;Tiosvl/'-Brbshan, £Z 135., costs 10s.;. same v...John'iW.vLahe, £1 35.; lOd.,.. costs, £l Ss. '6d.'; -William"-Mc'stoh v. Thomas Eae.-iEI 105.,-costs sS.i'-New.VZealand Acetylene . Gas Lighting Co., vLtd'.,- v.' ; Earrin and Eddy, £9 25., costs'. jCl';'3s. - : fid/j 'George Winder v. William B. Hutchings,',,£.l'9:'6s. ,Gd.,. costs ,£1"135."-'6 d.; James/DillohrV, East, .£7.35 v ;7d,,. cos.ts.'Bs.';"■;.■'.-.;■;. \--\^. : '.'- '■

.',';:..;■■•;• <■■-. In.the . .''-following,':'' judgment.:., summons .cases:—James ..E.'■-.■Bead : was ..ordered; to pay , J. : O'Brien,; ;;an'd■;.; Co* - :£l '■ Bs.,' on 0r... before .August," 19,- /in . .default three days' . imprisonment; ■Leonard Clough. was ordered, to pay'Leary and> Co' , ;,". Ltd., his debt ■of'jßM Is. 3d., ion or before the same date, in default 21 days'.imprisonment; Frederick W.Thompson was'given a fortnight to pay a debt of £2 16s. to H.,Pauli and Co., in default three days' 'imprisonment; and M. Holle was ordered to, pay Victor Erancis' Hughes the sum of £b before August 19, or spend, seven days in prison., ' ■ ' ; ■. •: .-■■■;■■■■■ ~

: iNo orders were made-inthe following cases:— TeAro House Drapery Co., Ltd., v. William Johnston, debt-of £& os. fid.; Andrew Gregg v. Iloland H./P«gley, debt of 13s. 6d.; WelliDgton Gas v Co., Ltd., y. Percy G. Taylor, debj: of £2 13s. ' / -v-■■' ' ■-•■'' l , ■,-;•■; v ' WAITRESSES' MEALS. :• ■■"'. • '■;I BREACHES OF AWARD. ■'.;The, hearing;of: the case brought by the Inspector •' of •'AwardsV against . Kirkcaldie ■ and Staiiis.for breaches of. the Cooks', and Waiters! Award, was 1 resumed'before-'Dr.. iM'Arthui', Silt.. In this case; the Inspector,'as plaintiff,' claimed-to recover .£lO-from.the,defendants : on the.ground that, being a company on which.the award'was binding, , they did not, during, tho months .of April, May/: June, .and i July, 1809/ provide:; meals free 1 of charge ■ for, workers 'in their'restaurant/..during'the hours,,when.'such premises ;wcre op'en/to the public... A- further charge, was!tha.t:during .the above-named period defendants ..'did' not ,'alloiv bdlf an hour to'employees for each'ihcal . The penalty .claimed for this/ohargo also .was . The' Hearing of evidence .on 1 these two,, charges . was begun last Tuesday.. , -- : '■ ■;•-'■ '::'■:-•■','■ .'■'■:,. . ■ ~'■.;. [Mr. 1). M.' Findlay appeared for. the plaintiff, and Wt. -AUL. Herdman for. tho; defendant.-, ■

':Mabel.Tendall,'-manageress:at',the defendant firm's tearooms, called by Mr. Herdm'au, stated •that she Teeollected n discussion of the hours of labour, wages, Mid meals allowetl^at.the'tearooms, when Mr. Lβ C'ren and J£rs. Hawthorn (both' of the Labour.: Department)';■ expressed, tliemselyes as' perfeotly. satisfied withtho then existing .state of things.- . The tearooms-had sines been conducted on precisely similar lines. .'.To■■Mγ. Findlsy: The. officers inspected tho place, and conversed, with all the waitresses. . The waitresses did not then,havoiti midday meal on Saturdays; and Mr.-Le Cren knew this.; To Mr. Herdinan: They had ham and tongue and salad most days, a,nd Mr. LeCren had said that such a meal was a luxury. , .... ; Sidney Kirkcaldie, , a member.of the 'defendant firm, stated in evidence-that ho knew nothing of the preparation of a round-robin (produced), eigned by the waitresses, and sent to the Cooks' and Waiters' Union, oxpressing complete satisfaction with the arrangements as to meals, and stating that there was nothing to prevent any of them helping themselves to what they required between 12.30. and 1 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr.; Lβ 1 . Cren and Mrs. Hawthorn "had visited the place atjiis request,'and Mr. Le-Cren had told him, after inspection that he was perfectly satisfied. There had been no alteration Einco. The waitresses worked onljr four hours on Saturday, and had the opportunity of taking morning tea. -Inspector Newton, who had since visited tho promises, had suggested that lunch should be given on Saturday. ■ Witness called several of the girls before tho Inspector,' and they all stated that they perferred the present arrangement. rather than staying on after 1 p.m. to have a meal. . ' _ ■ i Mabel Courts, waitress at Kirkcaldio and Stains, corroborated the manageress's Statements as to the inquiries mado by Inspector Lβ Cren and his expression 'of. satisfaction. When she cam'o at 9 and. left at 1, sho had no lunch,-but • could have as ' much as she liked for morning tea. When slie came at 8 sho had lunch. ■' : '■-'.■-. ' :

Mrs, Jessie Webb, another employee of Kirkcaldio and Stains, said that, sho had never known a girl- " srieak" a. roeal, or be refused a meal... : : ' . .•.: ■', Several other waitresses gave evidence ex r pressing satisfaction with their treatment and the ■ arrangements, as to meals. -... . Mr. Herdman contended that there was no breach of award.' The girls worked from 9 a.m. to

1 p.m., and they got morning tea, but were not givon lunch at 1, at which hour tho rooms were closed.. Fivo hours had not then gone .by, and there was, therefore, no obligation to give the meal. The award was being observed, and tho girU wero well treated. Mr. I'indlajr said tho defendants had not got rid of their obligation, under the award. An attempt had been made to do so by getting tho girls to sign a .waiver of their rights. Mr. Herdman interjected that no such attempt had boon made.-

Mr. i'indlay argued that if waitresses were employed while meals were being provided, they \<;ere entitled under the award to have their meals. This rijht was not affected by tho law as to a lapse of five hoin-s, mentioned by Mr.-Herdmiin, the latter bting simply a legislative provision that employees must not ba kept at \vork longer than five hours without a meal. ' ' . . . His.Worship said he wonld deliver judgment on the two charges on Thursday next. Twp other charges against" the Bante defendants were then heard. One of these cliargca was that, whereas tho minimum wago for a head cook (female) under the award wax ,£1 15s.', only A\' 10s. had been paid to Mrs. Elizabeth Good as head cook. The other charge was that Mrs. Good hat? been dismissed because she was entitled to the benefit of an award. The , Inspector of Awards also charged 'Elizabeth Gooct with a breach of award in accepting less than tho minimum wage. •MK Findlay appeared for. the Inspector, but tlie defendant on this" charge was not represented. A penalty of .£5 was claimed. : ' Tho three charges were taken together. ' Elizabeth Good said that, when ' she "was engaged by defendants, there was no mention of .cooking under Miss Tcndall. There, were in the same kitchen with her three other cooks and two bakers.'- Miss Tendall gave orders every night as to what she wanted cOolred next day,, find witness carried out tho orders. A fortnight and four days after starting, witness said she would leave in order to accept an offer of higher wages elsewhere, but Hiss Tendall-then raided her wages to 30s; a week, and' witness stayed on. She did not know that sho was not regarded as'head cook until she. heard Miss Tondall mention the matter in a .discussiqn arising ont.,of a certain' difference as to ■ working overtime in providing for a dnnce. Two days after the visit of tho inspectors, witness received two days' notice to leave: She had received back pay at tho rate of .£1 15s. a week.

To Mr ■■ Herdmnri: Witness had not comedo the Court animated by ill-fcelijij: towards Mis!i Tend&ll of with the object of injuring her. Walter Newton, Inspector of Awards, spoke of tho interview,: when Miss Tondall. had claimed to bo head cook, and said, that when he questioned her ho found that sho bad not for some, months actually cooked anything or prepared anything for cooking. He then pointed out that - sho was hot head cook within tho meaning of the award. Hiss Tendall then 1 said.'that--Miss'Barker-was head cook, and worked in the kitchen; in tho morning, chioily i-making pastry, and worked in the dining-room in the afternoon. Witness then said that on the "information given him -Miss'Barker'could rank as head cook. Proceeding to inqnir* about the' waitresses, he was told by Miss Tendall.'that Miss Barker was head waitress.' Miss Tendall in this interview showed bitterness towards Mrs. Good, and • said that if she had to pay hor 355. a week, sho would dismira her, also that she blamed Mrs. Good for the ■trouble that had arisen. Witness pointed otit to Mis-SiTondall that the suggested dismissal of Mrs. Good would probably amount;; to a breach of tho Act. Miss Tondall then said ( she would dismiss her, because she was not a good-cook. . : ••'•,.' . ,'■ . -. ■■.•'■• To Mr. Herdman: At tho interview Minded to, Mr. ■■Kirkcatdie said that Miss Tendall had been at , first engaged as head cook and paid a good salary on account of her, qualifications 'as.a oopk.' ,■ ■ ' ■ : ■ ' . : .. Albert Aldridge, Inspector of Awards, also gave.evidence. ■' ' . ..' Jessie Jacobs, formerly cook at Kirkcaldio and Stains's, said that she -had been' head cook, and was dismissed because she wanted £\ 15s. wages. ■ ■ Catherino Sullivan,- formerly in Kirkcaldio and Stains's employ, said that Mrs.-Gobd was 1 head cook; Miss Tendall'took no part in th« cooking:. Witness 'thought. Mrs. Good was a very good cook. - ■'-■•. : To Mr., HGrdman: Witness took, instructions from Miss : Tendalli- : ■ This concluded tho case for the prosecution. ' Mr. Herdman, in stating-tho case for tho dofenco, said that.Miss Tendall's chief duties consisted in the superintendence of tho cookinjf. It.'was perfectly'dear, ho said, that a lady tof '.■ Miss Tendall's ■ experiencs and know'ledge'..would not bo- engaged' merely to watch the girls.in.the tea-rooms. They claimed that she was h«ad cook, and that Mrs. Good and the others 'ivero merely assistants. ' :

• i Sidney. Kirkcaldie, .managing director' for Kirkcaldio and Stains, said that Miss Tendall was;engaged to ,take full., charge of the cooking ;and' lhanag'o the tea-rooms. Sho was responsible for. the 'preparation and serving of the food, and the staff had to take .instructions from her. At a previous interview he Had had with Mr. Lo Cren and Mrs. Haw- , thorn, 'the Labour .Department had agreed to recognise. Miss Tendall as head ! cook, :When in- an interview with . Mr.- Newton, witness agreed to pay. arrears, toi Mrs. , Good, ho expressly stated that he was not acknowledging h"er as head cook. ■'■ . .'. iMabel Teudall.said that, she instructed all tho cooks when she had engaged them. All her own- recipes..' wero nsed in tho ■ kitchen. She intended to dismiss Mrs. Good before she knew that there was a*', question of wages.;At this stage tho'hearing, was. adjourned to August 9.' ;, :