MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1977, 12 January 1907, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

BREACH OF FACTORIES ACT. (Before Mr Barton, S.M.) At tlie Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning tlio Inspector of Factories proceeded against Margaret Boyd, laundry house-keeper, for a broach of the Factories Act, in allowing one of her employees to work after 12 o’clock on Saturday, December 29th. Mr Stock appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Although the employee worked until 1.30, she did not work longer hours than allowed by the Act. The hours were Irom 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. On this occasion they had dinner from 12.30 to 12.45 and worked until 1.30. His Worship said that as this was one of the first oases of the kind here, he would only impose a small penalty, and he hoped that this would act as a warning. Defendant was fined 10s, costs 9s. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES V. MARGARET BOTD. The Inspector of Factories further proceeded against Margaret Boyd for allowing an employee to work after one o’clock on Saturday, December 22nd inst. Defendant, who was represented by Mr Stock, pleaded not guilty. Mr A. J. R. Islicrv.’ood conducted tlio case for tho prosecution, Lily Thomas, employed at Mrs Boyd’s laundry stated that on December 22nd she worked liutil six o’clock in the eveni ig. Defendant, her husband and daughter were working with her. Witness did not sco Mrs Rowley there. Mr Stock said tho defence was an absolute denial. The last witness was evidently confusing Saturday with the other days of the week. Margaret Boyd, defendant, Bernard Boyd, wifo of defendant, Kathleen Boyd, daughter of defendant, and Mrs Rowley gave ovidenco for the defence, to tho effect that Lily Thomas had finished at one o’clock on the 22ad. His Worship said tho information must bo dismissed. It was apparent that either the witnesses for the defence wore committing perjury, or that Lily Thomas had mistaken Saturday for some other day in the week. A third charge of breaches of the Factories Act preferred against Margaret Boyd for allowing an employee to work after the hour of one o’o’oek on Saturday December 15ib, was withdrawn, the evidence being similar to that in the previous case. DISPUTE OVER STOCK. Patrick Wnlsli (Mr W. L. Rees) sued licnri Kara for L2O, the price of five head of cattlo short delivered. Plaintiff stated that ho engaged defendant to drive tbirty-s'x head of cattle from the Matawhcro sale Yards to Tarawa. When ho took delivery‘there weic five short. He told defendant that h> would have to make them good. I efendant said he cou'd do nothing. Tho cattle were on the road, witness _ had seen them there. Hcmi Kara, defendant, stated that lie agreed to take the cattle as far as Bartlett s, plaintiff to take delivery there. Plaint ill had no dog, and he arranged with witness to find some one to take the cattle on. Witness employed Rakai. In November ; laintiff heard that llie cattle had been mustered and that five were missing. Rakai gave evidence re iho delivery of the cattle. His Worship said he was not satisfied on the evidence that there were live head of cattle sho t. He could not understand why plaiuiiff slept on his rights so Jong. He was of opinion that plaintiff had not missed tho cattle until he had mustered in December. Plaintiff wa3 non-suited, with costs £p 14s. POLICE COURT. A young man named David A. Wright was fined 10s and cost 2s for drunkenness. James Muhliesen was convicted of betting at the ICaraka races with a youth under the age of 21, and fined £5 and costs, in default, 14 days’ imprisonment. For refusing to quit licensed premises of the Kaitaratahi Hotel on January oth when ordered to do so by the licensee. Tom Sydney was convicted and fined the sum of .CO and costs 13s, witnesses* expenses LI 17s 4d, in default 14 days ■niib hard labor in Gisborne gaol. The informant. A. Caulton, lieenseo of the Kaitaratahi Hotel slated that defendant came to tho hotel the worse for liquor, and asked for a drink. Witness refused to servo him and as defendant became noisy witness ordered him out of tho house. Defendant refused to go' and witness attempted to put him out. Witness then rang up tho police. Defendant did not leave until some time afterwards. Dennis Collins, Thomas Fanning and Henry Williams gave corroborative evidence. In convicting ' accused Ill's worship said lro was satisfied that his condition was such ns to justify the licensee in ordering him out of tho house. He was quite justified also in taking proceedings and not allowing such conduct to take place,