PATEA.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 22 August 1924, Page 7

PATEA.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) MAGISTRATES COURT. The monthly -sitting of the S.M. Court was held here on Wednesday 20th inst., Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., presiding. Ihe Inspector of Factories proceeded against A. Illingworth, manager of the Alton Dairy Company, for having' certain belting in use in the factory with-

out proper protection for employees engaged. therein. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Gohns, Inspector of Factories, said the information was laid under Section 39b of the Factories Act, and stated that defendant was- manager of the Alton Dairy Company, where 'separators are in use, the ‘ operations of which necessitating the use of a number of -belts, between which the men

employed at the factory have to work. Ihe belts are not protected. He visited the factory about six weeks ago, and instructed the manager that he must have guards erected to protect the workmen. The manager informed him that the guards had been removed m order te facilitate-: the working of the men. The Inspector of Machinery had also informed the manager of the factory that the guards must be erected. He had again visited the factory, and found the position to be as was • the case six weeks previously. Statistics for the last year show an increase of 33 1-3 per cent of accidents in factories. There were five or six men working amongst the belting. A. Illingworth said he was the manager of the Alton Dairy Factory, and there was hut one man working amongst the belting now complain'ed of as unguarded, and it was impossible tor this man to do his work if guards were erected. He bad explained this matter to the inspector, and had also informed him that at the end of the season the intended alterations to the position of the belts would he attended to. This had now been done. The Bench: You realised the necessity for an alteration in the system and having made such alterations, will take such into consideration. It must lie clearly understood that workmen must b e protected from accident whilst at work. Defendant would be convicted and fined £2 and court costs, and witnesses’ expenses 10s. The Paten County Council proceeded against a number of occupiers of land for failing to remove gorse therefrom .after having been requested to do so. Evidence was given by the county engineer as to the presence of gorse on the sections mentioned, and after hearing defendants the court inflicted the following penalties.—A. Honey, Is and court costs 7s, solicitor’s fee 10s 6d; Rau Pita, convicted and fined £2, court costs 7s, solicitor’s fee 10s 6d. In the case of the County Council v. Tutangi, for failing to grub gorse Constable Armour explained that the defendant was deaf, blind and bedridden, and notice had been served on his netjhew Hira Marina, In giving evidence for the defence, Hira Marina stated that the property in question was owned by a number of Maoris, and contended that notice to remove the gorse should be served on each owner. So far as. his uncle’s portion, was concerned. he would grub the furze himself. The court said it would reserve judgment for one month to enable Hira to carry out the work. At the end of the period he would get a report as to whether the work had been done or not, and would adjourn the case toi the 17th September next. The following judgments were entered by default:—T. .J. Carter v. Pitu. claim £ l 2,s 6d- and costs; same v. Kuku Rakitu, claim £1 10s and costs; Thompson Bros. v. N. Tinney. Owing to insufficient evidence no order was granted.