BARMAIDS’ LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10510, 14 February 1928, Page 5

BARMAIDS’ LAW.

MARRIED' WOMAN BEFORE COURT. WAS SHE ENTITLED TO CERTIFICATE ? (Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Feb. 13. The Licensing Amendment Act of 1910, bv which restrictions were placed on the employment of women as barmaids, was the basis of a case heard before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury at the Supreme Court, when Marie Louisa Burgess, married, was charged with making a false declaration before a Justice of the Peace. Accused, who was defended by Mr. Dickson, pleaded “not guilty. ’ , . , Prosecuting on behalf of the Crown Mr. Meredith explained that the legislation of 4910 did not deprive existing barmaids of their situations, but was framed to prevent the- Luther engagement of women as barmaids in New Zealand hotels. The clause covering the employment of women who were, already barmaids laid it down that, if for a period ol two years or more, they ceased to be so employed, they should not be allowed to be re-employed. 'n March last year, accused made a sworn declaration before - a J.F.. in which she gave particulars regarding her work at various hotels. The dates to which she had sworn made it appear that she had not been out of employment as a barmaid for a continuous period of two years. The point to be decided was "whether Mrs. Burgess had or bad not been continuously employed. Evidence would be called to prove that the statements made by the accused were false. After tlie evidence for the prosecution. Mr. Dickson said the charge amounted to an accusation of perjury. It must be proved that the statements were made with intent to deceive and this, counsel -submitted, had! not been proved. Accused was a woman of excellent character. It, was not denied that she had worked in a drapery establishment, but she bad net ceased to be employed as a barmaid for a period ol two years. Giving evidence, Mrs. Burgess said she was living apart Irom her husband. Site had one child to support and wanted to re-obtain employment as a barmaid. Her little girl was ill and what witness received was not sufficient to support them and pay doctors’ and chemists’ bills. She might have been wrong in some ol the dates she gave, but she had no intention to deceive. It was quite true that site was employed at a drapery establishment tor a longtime, but she bad a holiday each year. During these holidays sin l worked as a barmaid in order to keep her certificate. There was one hotel at which she had worked which she did not mention in the declaration. The jury returned a verdict ol not guilty, and accused was discharged.