A BIG LIST

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20284, 6 December 1935, Page 7

A BIG LIST

MAGISTRATE HAS BUSY DAY YESTERDAY’S SITTING Quite a number of cases 'were dealt with at a sitting of the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., was on the Bench, and he had associated with him Mr J. P. Newman, J.P. By-Law Cases. For driving a car without being in possession of a licence, John Shine Lanham pleaded guilty and was fined 5/- and 10/- costs. Samuel Gilbert McCußoch for failing to drive a car to the left of the centre line of the road, was fined £1 and costs 12/-. Leo John Moore, of Christchurch, did not appear to answer a charge of driving a car in Stafford Street at a speed which might have been dangerous to the public. He was fined £2 and costs 10/-. Business Firm Charged. Millers (Timaru) Ltd. were charged with working two employees beyond the hours prescribed and failing to pay them overtime; with failing to record the work in the time and wages book; and with failing to notify the inspector of intention to w T ork the staff overtime. The Inspector of Factories (Mr G McKessar) said that two employees had been back working after hours, and no overtime had been paid. Mr Miller’s attention had been drawn to the fact that no notice had been served of his intention to work some of the staff after hours, that there was no entry in the wages book and that no payment had been made. Mr A. Miller, who represented the firm, said that he had not been aware that he had to notify the inspector. He knew that overtime had to be paid for, but not in the case of heads of departments. To the Magistrate, the inspector said that apart from this, the books were correct in every respect. Heads of departments were exempt from .lie payment of overtime provided they had three or more assistants under their control. On the charge of failing to keep tne books in a proper manner, defendant was fined £2 and 10/- costs, and on the other two charges he was convicted and ordered to pay costs. Milk Case. Jessie Glennie (Mr A. L. Hudson) was charged with selling milk which did not comply with the standard prescribed by the regulations. John Menzies, Government Health Inspector at Timaru, said that he purchased a pint of milk from defendant. The analyst’s report showed that the milk was deficient in butter fat content. There war. no evidence of skimming or adulteration. Mr Hudson said that defendant was only in a small way. She purchased 10 or 12 gallons of milk a day, which she retailed from her residence. The milk was sold by her in exactly f.he same way as it was received. The Magistrate said that he would not assume that the cream had been skimmed and sold, but the onus was on the supplier to see that the milk complied with the law. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed. Horse at Large. George Langrish pleaded guilty to a charge of allowing a horse to wander at large in King Street. Inspector Cameron said that the horse had been on the road on several occasions. Defendant had paid no pound fees. A fine of 10/- and costs 11/- was imposed. False Declarations. Albert George Hopkins pleaded guilty to making false declarations in order to secure sustenance over and above what he was entitled to. Mr E. C. J. Foot, who appeared for

the Department, said that each sustenance worker was required to make a weekly declaration of income from private sources. In this case the worker was allowed £l/4/- without deduction, and he made nine false declarations, with the result that he had been paid £3/12/6 more than he was entitled to. Mr L. J. O’Connell said that defendant’s wife had been ill, and as funds Lad been low, he had made the declarations. The Magistrate said that there was very little difference between defendant’s action and stealing. Defendant had made himself liable to a fine of £2O. He could not understand a man making false declarations. He had no power to put him on probation, or he would do so. A fine of £5 and costs 10/- was imposed, the Magistrate remarking that defendant deserved this and more. David Irving pleaded guilty to a similar charge. Mr Foot said that the Unemployment Board had decided to allow unemployed workers an additional 4/- a week for every child between the ages of 16 and 20, who were wholly dependent on the worker. Defendant made such a declaration, which was not correct, and in this case 28/- had been paid out which should not have been paid. Defendant said that he had not understood what he had signed. The Magistrate: Here „we are again. You are on sustenance, which is being paid by the Government, and if I send you to gaol you will be on sustenance, and the Government will be paying twice over. A fine of £3 and costs was imposed.