FAILING TO PAY WAGES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 11 February 1913, Page 4

FAILING TO PAY WAGES

BOARDINGIIOUSE KEEPER FINED

Reserved judgment was given by Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., in the Magistrate's " Court this morning in the case Inspector of Factories (Mr Tyson) V. Robert Pauling, charged with 'failing to pay wages due to an employee, May Russell. The judgment was as follows:—■ 'The defendant is charged with failing for 14 days to pay wages due to an employee. The charge is laid as per the 25th January, 1913/ The employee 1 left the employment on the 23rd . November, 1912. Her- wages were 15s per week, payable foi\tnightly. On the date [ she left she £2, but the back \ payments were in arrears. The amount due for the previous fortnight had not been paid. The wages boolc had been signed by the employee, but I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the signing of the book, the wages were not paid in fall. There was no apportionment of payment in respect of the £2, and I I musts assume that the wages for the fortnight ending the 23rd November were ! paid by the £2, and the 103 must be j apportioned to the furthest-back arrears. I This leaves the wages for the fortnight ending the 9th November wholly unpaid. They wei-e still unpaid on the 25th January. It is contended that the ' offence is a continuing offence. I cannot agree with this. The penalty is" a penalty of 5s per day for each day after fourteen that the wages are unpaid, but that does not necessarily make it a continuing offence. The offence is 'failing for 14 days to pay wages due.' This offence is complete after the expiration of 14 davs, and may be sued for. It was held in The Queen v. Slade and others, that an increasing penalty did not 1 necessarily constitute a continuing offence, and that the period of limitation for taking procedings was against an increasing penalty, and a conviction for any day after the expiration of the period" of limitation was bad. lam therefore of opinion that this is not a continuing offence, but only an increasrnaximum depends on the period of limitation set out in Section 43 applies. This section provides that 'The proceedings shall be commenced within one. month after the offence was committed, if the maximum fine does not exceed £lO, and within three months in any other case. Tho question is, which period applies in this case. The fine here is 5s per day. The maximum, therefore, would depend on the number of days. It is therefore an unascertained amount. The maximum depneds on the period of limitation, and tlic-period of limitation depends on the maximum. I am of opinion, therefore, that the only {workable interpretation .1 can put on this section is to hold that 'maximum fine' means a fixed maximum. As there is no fixed maximum in these cases, and the maximum depends on the number of days, 1 must hold that in these cases three months is the period of limitation. The proceedings are therefore in time, but the date, charged is wrong. The failure to pay wages occurred on the 9th November, and the offence was completed on the 24th. The information alleges the 25th of January. The evidence shows the 24th of November. The date, therefore, is a matter that 1 can amend in accordance with the evidence. The defendant is therefore convicted of failing on the 24th of November. 1912, to pay the wages due to one-May Russell mi the 9th"of November, 1912" being a de- I fault of 14 days, and such default con- J filmed up to the 25th of January, being in all n period of 64 days. The defendant is convicted, and fined Bs. being at I the rale of IJUI per day." I