THE COURT-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 10903, 11 April 1899, Page 2

THE COURT-TO-DAY.

WCBT-BIYORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. .(Before Hie Honor Hr Justice Pennefatherj ;; V\;; snt.v. bik. Motion for decree: absolute. Uhi» Was a husband’s petition, made by Walter Fairlie Sim, of Crookston, farmer,, against Dorothy Sim. The case was tried before Mr Justice Penmefather on the 6th. August last, when a decree nisi was granted. , Mr Sim now appeared to move that the decree be made absolute. His Honor: There is no other course possible, is there? v ~ Mr Sim: No other course. His Honor: What rule does it come under? The affidavits are sufficient, 1 suppose. Mr Sim: I have not the rule by me at the moment, but this is the practice that has been followed for many years, since the Act of 1881. - His Honor (after looking through the papers) s The affidavit is sufficient; therefore, in accordance with the Act, I am bound to order that the decree be made absolute.

BUPREML CODRT-W BANCO.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Pennefather.) HOWSIX v. BOSS. Motion for writ of certiorari. Mr Sim for the appellant, James Howell, of Patearoa, farmer, and.Mr Woodhouse for ' i the respondent, Robert Ross, of Alexandra, : miner. I | Judgment herein, reserved on the 29th March, was delivered by His Honor: When this matter came before the Supreme '< Court on a previous occasion it was by a motion for a writ of prohibition either restraining Rosa .(the applicant) and DaWeM (the warden) from proceeding further with the application, or restraining the warden from issuing the license until a day had been fixed for the final hearing, and such hearing should have taken place. The writ was askedforon two grounds: (l)ltwas argued that the application was improper inasmuch as it included more land and more river frontage than could be included in one claim, and certain land which, being freehold, could not be included in any mining claim. As to this, I held that I could not assume that the waiden would grant an improper application; he might reject it altogether, or grant it as to a part only; and if the objector considered that he acted wrongly in granting it as to part (a question which would to some extent depend upon the interpretation of Beg. 17), his remedy was by appeal, not prohibition. At any rate, the impropriety or otherwise of the application could not be decided until the survey was made. In giving this decision I considered that I wag bound by the judgment of Mr, Justice Conolly in Falvey v. Tregoweth, 16 N.Z.L.-R., 341. (2) It was also urged that the proceedingswereirregular, especially in the warden granting the application before the survey was made " subject to the survey." The warden had acted in accordance with what he believed to be tbe true construction of the Mining Act. 1891, section 129-in other words, he had granted the application on terms, the terms being the making of a survey, Sere, again, I held that as the matter was properly within the jurisdiction of the warden the party objecting to his rating had the right of appeal, bat had no remedy by prohibition. Now, however, the case has assumed a different aspect. The survey has been made in accordance with the warden a order and Kegs. 10-12. It is one of the conditions of such survey that an opportunity shall be given to persons desiring to object to the issue of the license to enter their objections, for the reasons I have already given, It is not necessary for me to decide whether an order could be made final as to other objections, but subject to objections which might arise out of the survey; all I have to say is that if it was made subject- to the survey it must be taken as being Bubji-ct also to the notice ordered by the survey and the possible objections arising therefrom. An objection did arise out of the survey—namely, it Sas said that the surveyor did not survey all the nd applied for, The objections were lodged, and an application was made to. the warden to hear them. Nevertheless on the 27th September, 1898, the warden refused to do so, and signed the license. The objector now seeks to have the license and all Proceedings thereon and relating thereto removed* lto this court and the license quashed. If the warden had a decision as to the validity of these objections, his decision would have been subject to appeal (see the Act, section 265, and Reg. 241), But to refuse to hear objections Uto omit a necessary preliminary to jurisdiction, and therefore a reason why the order maybe removed by certiorari into this court and quashed (see Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Wfflan,L.R. 5, P.O. 417,443). The same case shows that the objection may be brought before the Supreme Court by affidavit. I am of opinion, therefore, that tbe writ must issue. Costs, 4,5 ss. KAXWEIX V. RANDALL. Cage on appeal from the magistrate. Mr Fraser appeared for the appellant, Henry Maxwell, inspector of factories, and | Mr Wilkinson for .the (respondent, Rivy Randall, of Rockyside, spinster. I The information in the court below alleged . that defendant, being the occupier of- a facI tory or work room within the meaning of I the Factories Act, situate at Rockyside, i Caversham, did not as such occupier of such {factory or work room forward to the inispectpr of factories the written application J to nave such factory or work room regi*i tered under the Act. The case was heard by Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., on the 2nd I March, and the information was dismissed. { The statement of the case made by Mr I Graham was as follows:—" It was proved . upon the hearing that the defendant is the 'person in charge of the Salvation Army j Rescue Home, where females are taken in I to be reformed and turned into respectable : members of society. That there they are : trained in various kinds of household work, including laundry work? at which they all take their regular turn's/ That this work is entirely voluntary on their part. That they are not obliged to do it unless they choose. That they receive no payment of any kind i nor anything in the shape of hire or rewari. That they are housed, fed, and clothed free of all cost to themselves, and they would continue to he so even if they did no work That the laundry work, in addition to the washing of the clothing and other requisites of the institution itself, included washing that was taken in for payment, which pay- ; merit went in part to defray the expenses of the institution, but no portion of it was given to any of the inmates who did the labor of the said washing. I decided that the institution was not a factory or work room within tbe meaning of section 2 of the Factories Act, Is? 4, inasmuch as it was not shown that the persons who were working there did so for hire or reward." Mr Fraser said that, the department having been advised ghat die decision waj wrong, the magistrate was asked to state a case, and he had done so! The first point was the definition .of the word "factor?." It toeant''any office, building, or place in which two or more persons are engaged, directly or indirectly, in working for -Hire or reward in any handicraft, 6r in preparing or manufacturing articles'for trade or sale, including all bakehouses." The questions ,a£o£e whether the inmates of this home were working for hire or reward, and whether their work was a handicraft: Itf regard to the latter question he would mention that the word "handicraft" had received an interpretation in Judge Williams's decision in Armstrong v. Maxwell. He (Mr Fraser would point out that this Act was passed tor the protection of employes. Mr Justice Williams said so in his decision. He (Mi Fraser) would go a step further and say it was intended to protect persons who were employed in manual labor. Our Act wis largely based upon the English Act. His Honor: There is a definition of " factory " given here. Does that come from the English Act? Mr Fraser: The definition of "factory" in the English Act is a little wider. I His Honor: Because Ido not know that any attempt was ever made to T)lace refuges or institutions of that kind in England under the Factories Act. Mr Fraser: This is the first time it bas been challenged. They have all registered in other parts of the colony. They employ a Jarge number of persons in various classes of labor. These persons are grouped together and, although it must be admitted that the object for which they are gathered together is praiseworthy in the extreme, yet they are gathered together, and it is essential that their physical welfare shall be strictly guardedHis Honor *. If the English Act is the same as this, then it is a point to notice that no effort haa been made to bring them under the Act.

Mr Fraser: No doubt it is a point. In New South Wales, and even in Christchttrch, j the Magdalen Home has, I understand, practically closed up all other laundries. His Honor: It is so in Adelaide, too. Mr Eraser Baid that he wished to impress upon the Court that it was with the employes solely that he had to deal. There was, for instance, the danger from fire and the danger from insanitary conditions. His Honor: In England certain sections have been making violent efforts to have an Act passed for the inspection of convents on that very ground. : Mr trailer t They wwdd Iwre ot*»er reasons

Hia Honor: I am not gesgg into t&atJ What I point out is that S. is curious thaj ' witt this agitation going on no clfort lap been made to bring in t£e refuges, j Mr Fraser: Convents do not do this sort of work.- .>.-.-: His Honor: They tarn out embroideries; snd ail kinds of things. They make a greiv deal of needlework to sell. Mr Fraser: The articles they sell are 1 •probably articles made in hours of leisure. The Salvation Army engage in work the same as an ordinary person would. 'They take a horse and cart round and go about for work and orders'. His Honor: With regard to the Army in London, the Charity Oqjfanisation Society have been making complaints for many years that their places are not conducted on sanitary princMes—whether rightly or wrongly Ido not konw; bnt no effort has been made to bring them under the Factories Act. The secretary of the Charity Organisation Society wrote a strong memorandum on the subject some time ago, stating that the Army homes ; were insanitary, and therefore worked, mis-! chief. Mr Wilkinson: There are provisions for the local bodies attacking them under those conditions. Mr Praser proceeded to argue that the home came within the definition of the section and that the work at the home was a handicraft. The decision of Mr Justice Williams, previously referred to, was that the word must be interpreted in its popular sense, and he (Mr Fraser) submitted that laundry work came within that definition. It required a high degree of skill and training to turn out a shirt properly or to iron a blouse or a skirt, ana if His Honor would turn to section 41 of the Act ; be would see that the very tools used' in a laundry were there mentioned: "Ifin a factory or workshop where charcoal or gas irons are used," etc. It was perfectly true that these tools were used in the tailoring trade, but if used in a laundry the same mischief of poisonous fumes would have to be guarded against. On this point, at least, the appeal need give very little trouble. The more difficult question arose from the other portion of the section, relating to "hire or reward." His Honor: If this is a factory, all the results must follow. All the inmates must be entitled to a holiday, for instance. They must all have the Saturday afternoon holiday. Mr Wilkinson: And the building would require to exactly correspond with the requirements of the Act. Mr Fraser: There could be no hardship, because a person who is in the process of spiritual reform, requires as much fresh air as anyone else. His Honor: And a girl under fourteen years of age could not be employed there. Look at section 66. Mr Fraser: All the conditions of the Act would require to be complied with until the Act is amended. His Honor: A girl of thirteen years rescued from a brothel could not be employed in this institution at all—not merely would she be unable to work for wages, but to work at all..

Act is amended. His Honor: A girl of thirteen years rescued from a brothel could not be employed in this institution at all—not merely would she be unable to work for wages, but to work at all.. Mr Fraser: Np, she would not be allowed to engage in a handicraft. Mr Wilkinson: That turns upon the meaning of the word " employ." Mr Fraser: An establishment of this sort is divided. The laundry is a separate room. There would be no objection, I take it, to her being employed in another part of the building. The Legislature had before their eyes the necessity of safeguarding the physical and moral condition of employes. They would not have before them every possible class of factory or every possible result of the Act. The question always comes back to the consideration whether this comes within the spirit of the Act. I suppose it will be argued by my friend that " working for hire or reward" means Working for money or kind. * Elis Honor: According to the facts these persons are housed, bedded, and clothed, and that would be so even if they refused to

work. Mr Fraser: That is bo. His Honor: Then how can it be said that they worked for reward ? Mr Fraser: Because they do. The mere fact that they need not does not alter the fact that they do. It is voluntary, I admit. His Honor: Surely, Mr Fraser, if you get exactly the same reward whether you work or not, you do not work for reward. Mr Fraser: Put this case, your Honor. A large establishment is open; it is elaborately fitted; there is an excellent table kept; j every delicacy is provided—reading rooms, music, and all that belongs to the aesthetic side of life. The proprietor says: "You can come in here; I pay you no wages, but while you work you can enjoy Jhese benefits." It is purely voluntary. His Honor: But the proprietor must go on to say " But you can enjcy the benefits whether you work or not." Mr Fraser: Well, they come in and work. Those who work surely get then* reward for their labor in the enjoyment they have apart from their labor. They might get it if they did not work. But they do work and get it. The fact that others might get it who do not work does not alter the fact that they get it for their work. His Honor: With regard to their having enough light and air and so on I can see the point. But there is a very marked difference here, surely, because these women, if worked too hard, lose nothing by stopping. Mr Fraser proceeded to say that the Act was framed to meet the case of human beings crowded together improperly. His Honor: Suppose these women did nothing, the Act could not apply at all ? Mr Fraser: Certainly not. His Honor: And they might be crowded together in a most improper way, and the Act could do nothing. Would there be no municipal regulations? Mr Fraser: No j it is the only Act in this colony that protects the worker. .His Honor remarked that in England the 1 Public Health Act dealt with such questions, as crowded dwellings. Mr Fraser: We Jiave a Public Health Act, but it is \a dead letter. There is no machinery. Learned counsel proceeded to say that there was another side to the case, that the Army labor displaced a certain amount of oilier labor. But the main argument on which he relied was that this Act was passed specially for the protection of the workers.' That being so, he hardly expected to find the Army objecting to come in under it. The inspector did not seek to do more than his duty. His Honor: Take section 57: A person under the age of sixteen years shall not be employed in any factory unless such person hat passed the Fourth Standard. A girl fifteen and a-half yean old is rescued from a brothel. Is she not to be employed in an institution of this kind unless she has passed the standard? What should be done with her? Mr Fraser: This Act does not deal with reformatories, but if a reformatory comes within the industrial arena it becomes liable, I submit. * ' His Honor: Then you argue that such a girl may receive education but not be employed? Mr Fraser replied that if an industrial institution paid a nominal wage it would have to Jbe admitted that it came within the scope of the Act. Mr Wilkinson rose to reply. His Honor:' Ido not think it necessary to call upon you, Mr Wilkinson. la this case I fully admit that difficulties may arise from an institution of this kind not coming under the sanitary clauses of the Factories Act. It appears to me that there is here, if I may say so, room for such an Act as the English Public Heajth Act: Mr Wilkinson: There is a Public Health Act which I intended to show to your Honor, and I proposed to point out how completely these matters might be dealt with under it. If machinery is not provided, it can be-pro-dded at any time. His Honor: Then, for what I was going ' on to say I will substitute this: that the provisions required to meet this case are the provisions which should be provided under the Public Health Act or an Act of the kind, uid not the provisions under the Factories ■ a.ct. However, I base my judgment on the ; ictual words of the Aet, which I should not} ' >f course, be justified in going beyond one ' pay or the other. This definition of the ' irord "factory" includes only "a place in. : nrhich persons are engaged in working for ' lire or reward." In tins ease it has been ,' ihown that the persons are not working for j j

Jpre: Of rewara, Jiiisimwilt as they veoarre M moos when they .wndk than they would if they refused to warier That appears to me tfr be conclusive, and I do not think it necess*iy for me to say anything farther. The {meal will be dismissed. '",- Mr Wilkinson: It is the principle of grace, net the reward of work—the principle of free alms. His Honor: Theienure of frankahftoigne, in fact There is not application for costs, I suppose? Mr Fraser-: I did not apply for costs in die court below, and would not have asked for them here. Mr Wilkinson: That being so, I cannot in decency ask for costs. CITY POLICE COURT. ' (Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness.—John Grogan was fined 6s, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Ellen M'Gee, an habitual drunkard, was brought up. His Worship said the most merciful thing to do was to give accused the full term of three raonthr imprisonment, and he did so accordingly. Cattle at Large.—For allowing cattle to be at large in the Borough of Maori Hill, James NeiU (who did not appear) and George Crowhurst were fined 5s each and costs (7s). John Boy, who had been fined for a similar off en » last week, and who blamed the bad maintenence of the road by the Borough Council for the fact of the cattle wandering, was similarly dealt with. Gabriel Hodges, a first offender, was fined 2s 6d and costs (7s) for allowing a cow to wander at St Kilda. Fred Scanlan and Kate Dunstan were each fined 6s and 7s costs.