MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14151, 10 March 1910, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. One first pffender, who did not appear, was fined. 10s or 48 hours' for drunkenness when in charge of a horse . : A QUESTION OF APPRENTICESHIP. H; Lightfoot, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against Lloyd Bros, for breach of the Carpenters' Award. Mr Rolleston appeared [for defendant. Evidence given by the Inspector was to the effect that Lloyd Bros, had failed to-carry out the award with reference to the indenture of a youth. Albert Leslie Holland had been employed by them for three months, hut when he approached them to get properly bound they refused his request. Mr Rolleston said that the youth had been bound for six years with Shillito Bros., but in Nov. 1909, after four years had elapsed, ho was employed by Lloyd Bros, at his father's request.- He submitted that the indenture made out in the first place by Shillito Bros., still held good, as it had not expired. As long: us the lad was indentured it was all right, but it did not jnatter whether he" was indentured to his employer. His- Worship said lie did not agree with this view, but thought that an indenture could be transferred. Continuing, Mr Rolleston argued that there was no breach of the award as long as the terms of the indenture were fulfilled, and they had been. The hov had • been hound and received his proper wages. Lloyd Bros, were quite prepared, to put on the assignment of the 'lad's present employers that he had been in their employ for three months. Mr Day held that a lad should always be indentured to his employer.' Mr Rolleston said that the ruse was only a minor one. and there was no breach of law. If there was a breach in this ease there must be a breach in every case where one builder lent his boy to another for five minutes. Arthur Lloyd p;av« evidence that when lie took the boy on in November last be, understood that the father had seen that everything was in order. His Worship said that he was of opinion that there, had been a breach, but net a serious one, as defendant was a strnnper to the country, and had apparently been misled by the father of the boy. He would inflict a fine of ss. Judgments for plaintiffs by default were in 0. G. Know v. Wm. Foster, claim 18s Cd and costs ss: M. Freeme v. -J. E. Burns, claim £S 6s lid, and costs 25s 6d. The Magistrate dismissed a case Insneetor of Awards v. H. Berry, plasterer,' elanu £'L for breach of award. The Inspector S'lid that lkrry had paid hod-carriers Is an hour instead of Is .Id. hence the action, but F's Worship held tliat iltero were two separate classes of hod-carriers.