§ 9. Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a cloak-room porter employed at an Oxford Street restaurant who, on Friday last, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Marlborough Street Police Court for taking a few shillings from the staff gratuity-box, to which apparently he considered himself entitled; and whether, in view of 1544 the Magistrate's comment that money given to and intended for the staff was retained by the proprietors, he will consider the propriety of reducing the man's term of imprisonment?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have seen the report and made full inquiries into the case. The man was not a cloakroom attendant and had nothing to do with the cash taken. He robbed the till with a false key in the early morning when he was cleaning. He admitted a continuance of the robbery for two months. The staff in the cloakroom are paid by wages and not by the cloakroom fees. I see no reason to alter the sentence.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIf it be the case, as stated in the question, that this restaurant keeps a box into which money for the staff is put, and then the proprietors appropriate it instead of giving it to the staff, are they not guilty of obtaining money under false pretences, and should they not be prosecuted?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat may or may not be the case. I am informed that it is not the case. This man, however, had nothing to do with attending in the cloakroom, but with a false key he deliberately stole the money, whether it belonged to the employers or the employés.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs not the Home Secretary able to take action against the employers for having a bogus staff box there and extracting money from their customers under the pretence that they were giving it to the staff?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMy hon. and learned friend has no right to make an allegation of that kind.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs that not stated in the question, and is that not the Magistrate's finding?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have made full inquiries into the case. I sent one of my inspectors to see the cloakroom, and he inquired into the whole system. Really the statement in the question and that of my hon. and learned Friend are not founded on fact.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSFrom whom were the inquiries made as to the truth or 1545 otherwise of the statement? Were inquiries only made from the proprietors who are supposed to have appropriated this money, or were they made of the employés also?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSA police inspector was sent to examine into the whole system, and his report is perfectly clear. I know exactly the wages paid to the men. The fees paid are put into a separate box, and out of that the insurance for coats, hats, and other things that are lost is made up. It is not the money of the employés at all.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSAre we to understand that these sums which are apparently contributed for the employés are utilised by the proprietors for insurance and so forth?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe word "apparently" used by the hon. Member is not correct, and he has no right to use it.
§ Mr. BOWERMANMay I say, as a matter of explanation, that the use of the word "apparently" was based upon the comments made by the Magistrate.