THE EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT, 1873.

Otago Witness, Issue 1189, 12 September 1874, Page 11

THE EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT, 1873.

The following cases Avere heard on the 18th inst., at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Greymouth, before Mr W. H. Revell, R.M. :— Police v. Thomas and M'Beath. — The defendants were charged Ayith a breach of the above Act, by employing a female in their shop after the hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, 15th instant. Sergeant Moller, the Inspector appointed under the Act, proved going to the shop of the dei'ondants on Saturday at half-past 4, and to seeing a young girl trimming a hat in a room adjoining the shop. He called again at 7 o'clook, and the girl was Btill at Avork. Mr Perkins, Avho appeared for the defendants, insisted that the oharge should be confined to some fixed time. The Court ruled that a definite hour must be adhered to. The police then elected to give evidence upon the first visit of the Inspector to tho premises of the defendants. Elizabeth Rutledge said she was employed by the defendants as a milliner, and she was at work on Saturday when the last witness entered the shop. She «oraeii»es did other work, 6UC Ji mmv'mg

in the shop when required ; and she was engaged by the week.

The defence, as urged by Mr Perkins, was that the law was not intended to apply to cases such as the present. The Act was passed with the laudable intention of protecting females from the evil effects of the competition of any proprietors of factories, large workshops, and the like, where mere children were oftentimes subjected to barbarously oppressive treatment. But it could not refer to light employments, such as the defendant's work was, any more than it could apply to female clerks in Government Telegraph Oflices, or even to barmaids, to whom the Act did not allude.

_ Tiie Court : It is coming in that direction.

Mr Perkins : The Act was clearly unworkable, and its provisions could easily be avoided, by the employers keeping their people at work only within "xhe prescribed hours, and employing them on contract or piece work after wards. If the law was to be interpreted in such an arbitrary manner, a husband ddre not employ his wife in his own shop without subjecting himself to a penalty. The law, as it stood, resembled that passed for the purpose of preventing Sunday trading, and like it would be most mischievous in its operation, if ihe Courts did iy>t, by their decisions, protect the public. Mr Perkins concluded by moving for a dismissal of the charge, as no offence had been proved under the section of the Act prosecution relied upon, and that it was not proved that Miss Rutledge could not have the half- holiday, without loss of wages, which the law insisted upon forcing on her, had she chosen to take it.

His Worship said the argument of counsel that the Acb did not apply to the present. ca«e was not; upheld, The Act was a Colonial Act, and had a general application. The Bench considered the law was made for a praiseworthy reason, namely, to do away with the right of employes to oppress a certain class of employees who suffored from long hours at laborious work, because circumstancea rendered them unable to protect themselves. A nominal penalty would meet the present case, but the law was there, and until it was altered or repealed it would be administered. The defendants were fined 53 with costs.

Police v. Manson and Co. — This was a similar charge to the last, except that two <;irls were discovered illegally earning an honest living in the present instance. It was admitted that the girls were at work on the premises during the hours prohibited.

Mr Perkins, for the defence, reiterated bis arguments in support of a dismissal, and raised a technical point as to an informality of the information as laid. Inspector Hickson to this said it was competent for the Bench to permit an amend man t in any information, and if Mr Perkins wutil'l pivss his point the Oourc would be asked to amend the present information. Mr Perkins then contended that on the evidence the article the defendants' milliners were working at was not for f>ale or trade literally, bee mse it was purchased before it came into the milliners' hands, and it — a lady's hat — was merely beinp; further ornamented to suit the taste of the purchaser. Counsel was proceeding to refer to a case recently disposed of at Hokitika, but The Court refused to be guided by any decision of another Magistrate. If counsel could cite any higher authority than that Court, he would be listened to, but Judges differed and made mistakes, theref -re the ruling; o f one Magistrate was no precedent for the notion of another. Mr Perkins again raised the point that the employe could have had her half holiday if she had applied for it. The Magistrate said the fact was admitted that no holiday was given, because the girls were found at work after the hour when work should cense. The point raised was an exceedingly technical one, and need not hare been discussed at such length. Divested of the extraneous matter imported into the case, the plain fact was that the law had been br ken. a-id a penalty must be intiicted. The defendants were fined 5a with costs. Police v. Smith and Barkley.— This was a similar charge to the two preceding ones. The defendants, to save the time of the Court, pleaded guilty, and were fined Is, with costs. Mr Perkins enquired if half the fines in these cases did not go to the informants, because, if so 1 Inspector Hickson : Yes, its all right, Mr Perkins.