MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2482, 22 April 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

WEDNESDAY APRIL 24. (Before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY Tlie three young men, Horace Leyford, Frederick Roberts, and Robert Miller who were alleged to have been concerned in the. robbery from the person outrage at Kaiti last week, were again brought up. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared on behalf of the accused. Roberts and Miller. His Worship said that he did not consider the evidence beforo him sufficient to send Roberts and Miller for trial, and they would be discharged. Accused Leyford pleaded guilty to the charge and was committed for sentence to the next sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed, accused in £IOO, and two. sureties of £SO each, or one of £IOO. BREACH OF INDUSTRIAL ACT. The Inspector of Factories (Mr D. Carmody) appeared against Machell and 'Russell, butchers, on a charge of employing an assistant after 1 p.m. on April Ist. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for .defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Air Burnard admitted that the man in question was in the employ of defendants on the day mentioned. Also that he was driving the cart and did not return to the shop until after 1 p.m. He said that the man driving the cart had finished his work long before 1 p.m. but had taken .the opportunity of having a hot dinner in town, and had coine to tho shop after 1 p.m., when all ho had to do was to put the remaining meat away in the shop out of Ins cart. He claimed that it would be a hardship for tho employer to be fined because tho employee had taken it on himself to take an hour after he had completed his work. '

Mr Carmody stated that there appeared to bo an agreement between defendant and liis employee that "the latter should take the hour off for lunch.

His AVorship decided to hear the evidence of the employee, whose statement boro out 01r Burnard’s opening remarks.

In cross-examination by 0!r Carmody witness said that lie could not say if either of the defendants was in the shop when he stated his intention of not being back for lunch. After further argument by Mr Burnard, who also quoted authorities, Air Carmody submitted that an offence had been committed. Liis AVorsliip said that defendants had brought themselves under the Act in allowing their employee to work after hoars. Under the circumstances he would only impose the small fine of 5s without- costs.