ELTHAM COURT

Hawera Star, Volume L, 28 May 1930, Page 6

ELTHAM COURT

FORTNIGHTLY SITTING

At the fortnightly sitting of the Eltham Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr JR. \V. Tate, S.M., judgment for plaintiff was entered in all undefended civil case in which the laranaki Electric Power Board claimed the sum of £lO 13s 4d from Emily done Stubbs (costs £2 14s). In judgment summons proceedings' L. A. (lower was ordered to pay to John Swinsom Company the sum of £ll 6s and costs £1 Is forthwith, in default 10 days’ imprisonment. motor cyclist fined. Archibald Thomas, of Kapuni, for driving a motor cycle in a manner "'lnch might have been dangerous to the public and for riding without a headlight was disqualified for holding another license for a period of six ! months and ordered to nay costs £1 2s. His current license was suspended. Defendant appeared in court on crutches as the result of a collision between his motor c.yce and a motor car on May 12. Sergeant Henry gave evidence that defendant was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision. SPEEDING AUCKLAND MOTORIST On a charge of driving a motor car ■on April 9, within the borough of* | 11.1 th am, at a speed which migilit- have! been dangerous to the miblic, ITector. Sinclair, of Epsom (Auckland), wac, convicted and fined £2 10s with costs £1 11s. The borough inspector (Mr A. E. Lethbridge) gave evidence that defendant was travelling at the rate of 35 miles an hour at the time of the offence. PALMER. ROAD COLLISION. On the information of Constable O’Bonoglme, of Kaponga, John Henry Ward, of Maboe, was charged that on j

May 3, '1930, he did negligently drive a, motor vehicle on the Palmer Road. Mr X. H. Moss appeared for defendant, who pleaded guilty. Sergeant Henry said that on tire day in question Ward in attempting to pass a waggon had collided with a motor cyclist. Ward was on his wrong side, hut there was no suggestion that defendant was speeding.

Mr Moss said there was no serious element in tire case. His client had followed the waggon for some chains before attempting to pass. He took precautions to see that the road was clear, but did not see the motor cyclist. It was about dusk. His client had lights, and was proceeding at about 12 miles per hour. Counsel emphasised the fact that his client had taken precautions. Mr Tate: Y os, but lie bad not taken onou gh. A line of £1 was imposed, and defendant was ordered to nay costs £l. BUTCHER, AND MESSAGE BOY.

Alfred Ware, butcher, of Eltliam, was charged: on the information of the Inspector of Factories and Awards (Mr W. J. Berryman) that being a party to the award, he did on February 22, 1930, and for several weeks preceding that date, employ one Bernard Cowell and; did fail to ;pay him the rate of wages prescribed' by the award; also, that between January 11. 1930 and February 22, 1930 defendant did employ an. excessive number of boys or youths to men as prescribed by the 1 award. Mi- Berryman conducted the pz-osecu-tkm, and. defendant was represented by Mr W. Xi. Weir. The facts, said Mr Weir, were admitted. Thei boy’s age, was 13 ; he wa,s a schoolboy in the sixth standard and was one of a family of seven children whose ages ranged from eight months to 18 years. His father was employed on the County Council and received 13s Id a' day and; no wages when the weather was wet. The boy worked at Mr Ware’s' shop running messages before and after school on four days a Week. On the half-holiday he only ( Worked the half-hour izi the morning. On the Saturday he worked from 8 to

5. The average hours worked by the boy were about- 2$ or a-third less than the award required from a worker. Counsel submitted that the boy was not a worker within the meaning of the award. By law ho was precluded from carrying out the obligations of the, award. Under the Education Act, as a child between the age of 7 and 14 he was required to be at school, it was, therefore, impossible for the, boy to be a worker and fulfill his obligations under the Education Act at the same time. It was quite true that the definition of worker was very wide under the Act, but it was impossible to read the section in the industrial and Conciliation Act in such a way that it would allow the boy to be employed. It would, be an inconsistency in the Jaw. Under the award, he could not be a worker. The award did not contemplate a schoolboy within its control. It could: contemplate only those persons who could fulfil its provisions. According to the Act the worker must be able to work the hours prescribed:. Either physically or legally- the boy could not possibly comply with the ■ award. In paragraphs 2 and 4 a worker was to be paid the wages for the! work he was substantially employed in. The boy was not working underj any of the beads of work. The boy’s main work wa,s cleaning up, messages, | and delivery of meat by means of a bi-’ cycle and a basket, the work for vyhich lie received 8s per week. Mr Weir contended that the boy was not covered by the award, and, therefore, there could- not be any breach. He, stressed the fact that t.hie bioy was assisting fiis- .parents. With a’ view to helping the family, Mr Ware had employed the- boy, though lie had boys of his own who could have donei the work. It was the boy who would suffer, not his w client, and: under the. circumstances he would ask that His Worship use his discretion and dismiss the case. Mr Berryman said that the term “worker” covered any person who did work, and quoted authority in support of this definition. He maintained that the delivery of meat was butchers’ work, although he would not go|

so far as to say that the boy vas a butcher. Where a weekly wage was laid down, the employer must pay the prescribed wage even if the workei did not work the full time. In reply to Mr Tate, Mr Berryman sail'd that there was provision for under-rate workers in the award. Mr Weir said this applied in cases of old-age and disability and had no bearing on the present case. Decision” was reserved.