MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2950, 23 November 1900, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—FRIDAY, NOV. 23, 1900. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) THEFT. Benjamin Seabuurn, a youth of 17, charged on remand with ttieft of money from Mrs Lutterworth, appeared to be dealt with.

Sergeant Green said that the lad’s father had been communicated with and had offered to refund the money, but would not have anything rno;re to do with him. The Probataion Officer reported unfavourably on accused, and under the circumstances could not recommend that he 'be admitted to probation. His Worship said that this was the boy’s first offence, and it would not perhaps improve him morally to send him to gaol. Sergeant Green said that Mounted-Con-stable Crawford could got accused work to go to in a few days. His Worship was inclined to accept this suggestion, and ordered that accused bo remanded till Mondav. DRUNKENNESS. John Sutherland, an old offender, was ordered to pay 2s cab hire, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. TRUANCY. J. Black pleaded guilty to failing to send his child, aged 11 years, to school. The Truant Officer said the defendant had been before the Court previously on a similar charge. The child was very irregular, aand no satisfactory reason had been given. Defendant said that he had no excuse to offer, except that his wife had been ill. and he had kept the child at home to assist I in the housework. His Worship said that he would accept the excuse this time, but defendant must send the child regularly in future. THE SHOP ACT.

A local tradesman was charged with ema shop assistant more than the llj hours allowed by the Statute on one day in the week. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Green stated that the information was laid by Constable Crawford, Inspector of Factories, under section 12 of the Shop Assistants Act, which provides that no

person shall be kept at work for more tli-'n a certain number of hours per day. the greatest number allowed being lit hours on- one day in the (in this case it was Saturday), and on other days 9f hours. The defendant, it was alleged, had employed a. boy for hours, or more than that, taking out parcels. Evidence was given by the boy that on the Saturday in question he went to defend-

j'nt-’s shop at 8 o’clock in the morning, left for dinner at noon, ami had half on hn-v (iff; resumed work at 12.39. and -worked till 6 o’clock, and then had an hour for ten ; came on again at 7 o’clock, and worked till 9.30, and was then given parcels to deliver on his way home. The last parcel was delivered at 10.20 p.m. Inspector Crawford gave evidence that lie saw the boy leave defendant’s shop at 9.20, and deliver parcels, the last being delivered about 10.20 p.m. Reported the matter to the Chief Inspector, and got instructions to prosecute. Defendant made a statement on oath that the boy went to work at 8 o’clock, and finished sweeping out the shop at about 9.30. From that time till 12 o’clock he had practically nothing to do. There were some other hoys employed taking out parcels, and as long as one of them was about the shop the others could go out ,and sometimes did go down thevbreakwater. He denied that the boy had only half an hour for dinner: if he came back before 1 o’clock he bad no business to do so. The parcels delivered that night could have been sent out about 5.30, but to save the bov a walk he suggested that he should take them when he was croing home, as it was on his way. His Worship pressed the cresthn whether the hoys were expected to be a 1 ways at the shop between 8 o’clock and 12 noon. Defendant said that there was very little for them to do. As far as he was concerned, the boy could have the three hours off if he liked. His Worship said it was clear that the boy had been employed longer than permitted by the law. It was an objectionable practice, and boys should not be given work to do after the closing hour. As this was the first case of the kind, and not a very serious one, he would impose a small fine, 10s and costs. BREACH OF THE PEACE. A resident of Pleasant Point was charged with being on licensed premises, he being in prohibited person; also with using threatening language, thereby causing a breach of the peace. Mr Raymond appeared for accused, anad said that the facts were admitted. The two charges arose out of the one transaction. There lyM been a technical breach of the Licensing Act. Accused and the licensee of the hotel had had some differences in regard to their domestic affairs. On the day in question, accused was slightly under the influence of liquor, and -frent to the hotel, looked inside, and wanted the licensee to come out and have a row with him outside. There was no suggestion that he went to the hotel for liquor; in fact, he went to have a row with the landlord. Accused now expressed his great regret fox what had happened. Sergeant Green said that Mr Raymond s statement was practically correct. Accused abused the landlord in the hotel and was put out, but continued the abuse in the street. , , His Worship said that defendant had been guilty of very improper conduct. The offence of being on licensed premises was a technical one, and on the other offence a fine of 20s and costs would be imposed. BICYCLE GASES. W. Eichbaum pleaded guilty to riding without lights in the borough. Fined 5s and costs. H V Stapleton pleaded guilty to riding a bicycle on the footpath. Fined 5s and costs

CATTLE WANDERING. Thomas Leonard was charged with two offences of allowing horses to wander. Defendant did not appear. Constable Madden gave evidence that on the 25th October he found four of defendant’s horses on the road at iterrytown, and on the Ist inst. three of the same horses were at large. There had been many complaints about cattle trespassing on roads. Fined 10s and costs on each charge. _ M. Sheehan was charged with allowing two horses and cows to be at large on a pnbbc road at Pleasant Point. Constable Madden gave evidence that he found the cattle wandering on the mad, and about half a mile further on two hoys told him the cattle belonged to Mrf SheehanThere was nohodv in charge. Defendant made a. statement that he had put bovs In charge of the, cows. His Worship imposed penalty of 13s, The Court rose at 12.15 p.m.