HARDSHIPS OF THE FACTORIES ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9721, 17 January 1895, Page 6

HARDSHIPS OF THE FACTORIES ACT.

At the Police Court yesterday a prosecution under the Factories Act was heard before Mr. orthcroft, S.M., in which some of the hardships to employers and employees arising out of the Act were shown, and an indication given of the probable results as reducing the chances of employment. Mr. A. Neville Lester was charged with employing his assistant, Cecil Hawkins, after two o'clock on the week ending 22nd of December. Defendant, for whom Mr. Gitfcos appeared, pleaded nob guilty. Mr. McAlister prosecuted for the inspector, and related the circumstances of the case, stating thab the inspector had previously cautioned the defendant as to the provisions of the Act. The defendant kept a shop—the Melbourne Arcade— Karangahape Road, and another in Queen-street. Inspector Ferguson said he visited the defendant's shop, Queen-street, on the 24th December, and found Mrs. Lester and Cecil Hawkins there. .He inquired of Mrs. Lester if her assistant had had - a half-holiday during the previous week, and she replied he had not. He then asked Cecil Hawkins, and he replied that he had no holiday the previous week. Subsequently he met Hawkins in the street, and he informed witness that he had been dismissed, and he showed a letter purporting to be signed by Lester, in which it was stated, " You may thank Inspector Ferguson for the present arrangement." Cecil Hawkins, a young man, deposed that the letter was left where he boarded. It was signed, and the signature. so far as he could recollect, from having seen Mr. Lester's signature before, was his signature. Mr. Lester interjected that he did not deny the letterhe wrote it. Witness went on to say that as a matter of fact he had nob had a half-holiday on the week prior to the Inspector calling at the shop. He was in the Queen-street shop, of which Mrs. Lester generally had charge, and she paid him his salary. In crossexamination witness said it was his own fault that he did not have the half-holiday, but there was so much work to do that he preferred to stay and do it. Previous to being employed in the shop he was travelling for Mr. Lester on commission, and while in the shop he received small wages and commission on what he soiu. The wages, it was elicited, were only 10s a week, and in re-examination he said he had been out of employment since Mr. Lester discharged him. He had a partial promise of employment but not from Mr. Lester. His employment by Mr. Lester depended on the result of this case- - His Worship pointed out that this did nob arise out of cross-examination, and witness said all Mr. Lester said was that he should not wish to employ him till he saw how this case was going. Mr. Gittos submitted that there was no breach of the Act, but the Court ruled that there was a case to answer. The defendant was called, and said that seeing Christmas was coming round, he gave Hawkins, who had been selling on commission, the advantage of partly managing the Queen-street place, his wife not being able to do the heavy work. He had to open and close the place, but in the meantime his time was his own, either to sell on commission outside, or in the shop, and he was at liberty to take his halfholiday if he chose. In regard to the letter, he said he was so annoyed by the action taken by the Inspector and by the Act itself, that he had a good mind to discharge every hand he nad. Hs had always endeavoured to treat his employees well, and the regular hands always had the statutory half-holiday. The Magistrate pointed oub thab the letter did not discharge Hawkins. It only stated that defendant's brother would take charge of the shop, and defendant could take up his old running. He adjourned the case until Saturday, and would in the meantime look into the Act as to whether there was or was not a case.