MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Kaikoura Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 64, 17 August 1944, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

KAIKOURA SITTINGS. (Before Mr G. G. Chisholm, H.M.). A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday morning, when the following cases were dealt with:— Two lads were dealt with in the Children’s Court. After admonishment by his Worship they were permitted to goPURCHASING KEROSENE FOR USE IN CAR. Ernest Albert Frame, charged with purchasing eight gallons of kerosene and using same in his car to proceed to Christchurch, did not appear, and was convicted and fined £3, with costa. POLICE OFFENCES. Five men were charged with having liquor in their possession in the vicinity of a dance hall. Only one of the defendants appeared, and he pleaded guilty. Hiis Worship said plenty of publicity had been given regarding such offences. Each of the accused was fined 30/, with costs 12/. (In future we intend to publish the names of offenders in these cases). Silas Thomas Lewis, charged with failing to give way to right hand traffic, pleaded guilty, and was fined 20/, with costs 10/. A. A. Jones, charged with riding a bicycle at night without a light, was convicted and fined 5/, with costs 12/. D. Morrison, similarly charged, was dealt with similarly. CIVIL CASES. Kaikoura County Council (Mr J. W. Anderson) v. J. W. Clark, £7 19/7. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs 17/ and solicitor’s fee 15/6. In a judgment summons case S. Lewis offered to pay A. Smith £3 a month in respect of a debt of £l2 2/6. The offer was accepted. BREACH OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’ ACT. APPEAL BY SHEEPFARMER.

A. Shaw, for the Labour Department proceeded against E. H. Eccles (Mr J. W. Anderson) respecting an alleged breach of regulations under the Agricultural Workers ’ Regulations. Defendant appealed under Section 11 (3) of the Agricultural Workers’ Act, 1936, against the following requirements by the Department of Labour:— (1) To provide sleeping quarters to contain not less than 500 cubic feet of air space for every person to be accommodated therein; (2) to provide flooring in sleeping quarters of T. and G. flooring boards with minimum of 6in air space and ventilation above present concrete; (3). Defendant based his appeal upon the following grounds: (a) That the present accommodation provided has been passed as satisfactory on three previous occasions, since the buildings were erected, by the Department of Labour, and that no complaint had been made at any time by any one of his employees. In evidence defendant Raid he was a sheepfarmer residing 31 miles south of Kaikoura. He had not had complaints from] the Department, and he - appealed on the ground of ability and unreasonableness. He was willing to comply with the regulations. The rooms had been passed previously as according to regulation. To Mr Shaw: The railway ran past his property, but goods trains were not running most of the time. The accommodation had been inspected four or five years ago. The shearers’ representative had also previously passed the accommodation as satisfactory. He believed the premises had also been inspected about 18 mionths ago. Permanent hands had accommodation when shearing was in operation. He objected to what he termed Gestapo methods. W. J. Taylor, an employee, said he had been employed by appellant for eight years. The room he slept in was comfortable and he had never complained. He was satisfied with the concrete floor. F. King, another employee, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness.

C. G. King said he was quite satisfied with the quarters, which were quite cosy. Mr Shaw said he objected to the statement made regarding Gestapo methods, and explained the steps he had taken when visiting the property. Mr Eccles was not present, and he had interviewed the man who said he was in charge. He had been informed that eight men were accommodated, which exceeded the number pernyitted by the regulations. He contended that the previous inspection had been approved under the shearers’ award, but under the Agricultral Workers’ Regulations a concrete floor was contrary to those regulations. His Worship said he considered the air space requirements had been cleared up. The criticism of appellant regarding Gestapo methods was not warranted. Regarding the concrete flooring, there was a mandatory regulation which had not been complied with, although no complaints had been made by the employees. The requisition, he considered, was not unreasonable. The requisition regarding the flooring be upheld, although there might be difficulty in securing labour and material. The appeal was dismissed.