§ Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a prosecution by the local factory inspector, Mr. S. Shuter, of Messrs. Meakin, Limited, of Tunstall, for an offence under the Truck Acts; whether the fine was afterwards remitted as delayed wages by the firm; whether a fine sheet had been made out against the worker and registered; what was the decision of the learned stipendiary relating to the case; and what action he proposes to take to prevent similar evasions of the law?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMy attention was called to this prosecution. The defence was that no fine had, in fact, been imposed, and that the amount in question, which was the wage for work that had not at the time been examined and passed, was only withheld—though withheld admittedly by way of punishment—until the examination had been made. It is the case that an entry of the stoppage had been made in the fine register, but it was stated that this had been done by mistake. The decision of the stipendiary, as reported in the newspapers, was to the effect that on the whole of the evidence this was a case in which he ought not to convict. The question, in any case, whether a fine has or has not been imposed, is, of course, one of fact for the courts to decide on the evidence before 617 them, and there is no action which I can usefully take in the matter.
§ Mr. J. WARDDo I understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no appeal whatever from this decision?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am advised there is no action which I could take.