MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19292, 10 July 1924, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held in Invercargill yesterday before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M, FOOTWEAR REGULATIONS. Prosecutions under the Footwear Regulations Act were brought by Inspector Wakelin, of the Labour Department, against Messrs Holmes Bros., bootmakers, of Tay street, for having in their possession for the purpose of sale, a quantity of footwear, the soles of which did not consist wholly of leather, and on which they had failed to have a statement of the component parts of the soles legibly stamped. Mr Horace Macalister represented the defendants, who formally pdeaded not guilty. • Mr W. J. Wakelin, Inspector for the Labour Department, in outlining the ease for the prosecution, said that the footwear Regulations were brought into effect in 1913 for the purpose of protecting the public, and there was no doubt that the administration of the Act had been greatly to its advantage. Since the war everyone had become familiar with what might be termed “faked footwear,” and acting upon instructions recently issued by the Minister, steps had been taken to enforce the Regulations, which provided for the componentparts of either a boot or a shoe to be stamped in legible type, so that the purchaser could readily ascertain whether the article was composed of leather or of composition. Mr Macalister said he did not purpose contesting any of the facts, though he would just like to mention that the Department’s policy was hardly fair in reference to the defendants, who were themselves the victims of deception. Counsel said he did not think it would be contended that the firm itself was guilty of intent to deceive or defraud the prospective purchaser. They had purchased a line of 14 pairs of children’s shoes from Messrs George and Doughty, a wholesale firm, of Wellington, who, when the order was placed, had submitted a sample to the defendants of a shoe fitted with a leather insole. It was not the practice to examine the insole of every shoe when it came into the shop, but merely to have a look at one pair, and this had been done. Subsequent to the Inspector’s visit, however, the whole line had been examined, with the result that six of the fourteen pairs were found to have leather insoles, and the remaining eight pairs composition insoles. The latter were not branded by the manufacturer in accordance with the Regulations, and, that being so, there was provision made in the Act for him to be charged with the offence as well. He therefore suggested that the case should be adjourned in order to permit of that being done. His Worship said he did not see any necessity for doing as suggested, and he proposed to dispose of it right away. Defendants would be fined £5 and costs 7/-, and the Department could, if it wished, take further action. ANOTHER FIRM CHARGED. A similar charge was preferred against Messrs Hallenstein Brothers, who were found to have in their possession for the purposes of sale a line of women’s glace kid shoes, which were not branded to the effect that certain parts were composed of materials other than leather. Mr Eustace Russell, who appeared for the defendant company, pleaded not guilty, and said that the whole point at issue was whether a piece of cardboard in the portion of the shoe known as the stiffener was there for the purpose of giving greater strength to the back of the shoe, or for the purpose of absorbing the moisture, and preventing the tanning from staining the stockings of the wearer. Evidence to this effect was adduced by George Payne, John W. Stead, and Chas. William Paton, all of whom testified to the fact that their long experience in the trade satisfied them that the cardboard was merely placed there as an absorbent material for perspiration from the wearer’s foot, and not for the purposes of strengthening the stiffening in the shoe. His Worship said that he was satisfied that the weight of evidence was against; the Department’s contention, and that therefore the charge would be dismissed. EXEMPTION FROM PARADE. Leslie Dunbar applied for exemption from military parade on account of his attending the Technical College four nigjits a week for the purpose of preparing for an examination in December next.—Exemption was granted until the end of the year. MAINTENANCE. Charles Griffiths, for the disobedience of a maintenance order, was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment m Auckland gaol, the warrant to be held in abeyance if the sum of £2B 10/- is paid by July 23. BY-LAW BREACHES. William James Murphy pleaded gui/ity to chargfes of riding a motor-cycle in a dangerous manner in Jed street, and also with permitting a passenger to ride on the carrier.—Defendant was convicted and: fined 40/-, with costs 7/- on the first charge, and on the second was convicted and discharged. Robert Arthur Stewart, for leanring a motor lorry in Ythan street without proper lights attached, was fined 10/-, awd costs 7/-. William S. King, for driving a motorcar round the corner of Esk street into Dee street on the wrong side of the thoroughfare, was fined 40/-, with costs 7/-. Alexander Milne, for failing ’to have lights affixed to his motor vehicle whilst parked on the road outside his property, was fined 10/-, with costs 7/-. William Wills, for negligent driving on the North Road, resulting in a collision with a tram-car, was fined 20/-, and. costs 11/-. Norman Crosbie entered a plea of not guilty to a charge of driving a motorcycle in a negligent manner along Tay street, and also with having carried a passenger on the pillion. On the second charge he was convicted and fined 40j z - and costs, and on the other was convicted and discharged. A charge of negligent driving in Conon street against Allan George Watt was dismissed. Hector Allan McLaughlin and James Archibald O’Brien, for permitting chimneys in their residences to catch fixe, were fined 10/- and casts 7/-. Minnie Lawrence for being; the owner of a dangerous dog, was convicted and discharged. UNFINISHED CASE. The sequel of a collision which occurred in Elies Road on June 3 resulted in Malcolm McKenzie and Alex Dairdion McGregor being jointly charged with negligently driving a motor-car, and also with having failed to give their names and addresses when requested to do s<>. Lengthy evidence was heard, but owing to the lateness of the hour, the further hearing of the case was adjourned to a later date.