BREACE OF THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Colonist, Volume XLIX, Issue 11926, 4 May 1907, Page 2

BREAC E OF THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Sophia Anstice, draper, was' charged by the Inspector of Factories (Mr S. Tyson) with unlawfully employing three shop assistants after hours being a breach of section 3, sub-section 3 of the "Shops and Offices Act, "Amendment Act, 1905." '{Defendant, for who Mr Maginnity appeared, admitted the offence, but said she understood that if she paid her employees time and a half for overtime she could have them back at work. She said there were no printed rules to go by as in the case of the Factories Act, and she was unaware that she was committing a breach of the Shops and- Offices Act. Mr Tyson said defendant had been warned on several to obtain a permit. The Act had been in force for two years and shopkeepers should make themselves acquainted with its provisions. . The Magistrate "said that although ignorance of the law was no excuse, he would take into .consideration the facts as stated, by defendant, and ■a fine "of 5s and costs 11s was inflicted. PROHIBITION ORDER I A prohibition order' was issued against a woman to have effect twelve months. A MAINTENANCE CASE. Lily Emily Annie Dimes Haines applied for a separtion and; maintenance order against" her husband Walter Ernest Haines on the ground of cruelty and negleot to provide. her with reasonable maitenance, ;The information was laid under section 3 of the "Married Persons Summary Separation Act, 1896." Complainant also applied for the legal custody of their child, MyrtlegMaisha, and that her husband should pay the costs of the court. Mr Maginnity appeared for complainant and JMrMachell (Adams and liar ley) for defendant. The complainant stated that she had been married to the defendant for three years, and that on several occasions lately he had been guilty of cruelty. Once he struck her on the mouth and another time he knocked her down. He was always rowin? while he was in the .house. They had one child who was under two years of age and all defendant had contributed towards the support of herself and child, since November last had been three pounds. She had been earning money by keeping boarders. In reply to Mr Machell complainant said her husband was of a very quarrelsome nature and even growled when he woke up in the .night. Lilian Langlois, wife of Thomas Langlois, who resided with complainant, corroborated the evidence of previous witness in regard to the quarrelsome nature of defendant, and stated that she had seen him strike complainant. She said the language defendant used was "something awful" and she sometimes could not sleep of a night for the row he made. Grace Oliver, 13 years of age, a daughter of complainant, said she had seen Haines strine her mother on two or three occasions.,. Thomas Oliver, brother of tbe previous witness, gave similar evidence. Defendant, who was sworn on his own Bible, denied the charge of. cruelty, and said his wife was a very bad tempered woman. She bad, he said, threatened him with a carving knife and bad struck him on the nose with a poker. He had, never laid hands on his wife without provocation. He would be willing to keep the child as it was afraid of its mother. In reply to Mr Maginnity defend-, ant said the quarrels all arose through bis wife's objection to bim going to church on Sunday morning. Lily Langloiß recalled, in reply to the BL»nch, eaidjfshe had known Mrs Haioes since the Bth September last and had been living with her since 3rd November. She had never seen complainant under the influence of liquor or any impropriety in her conduct. She certainly thought Mrs Haines was the proper person to have charge of the child. The Magistrate, in summing up, said that on the evidence complain* ant must succeed on both grounds. The charge of cruelty had been proved, and it had been shown that defendant had wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife and ohild. The separation order was granted, complainant to have custody of the child, and defendant was ordered to pay 12s 6d per week towards the maintenance of bis wife and child and the court costs. Defendants was given a fortnight to pay the costs.