6.
81
conveniently be summarised as four similar cases, each involv- ing one girl and two defendants.
A:- For
(b) The girl in each case was a registered muit sai; it was found by the Inspectors that she was not residing with
The her employer, but living and working at another address. registered employer was summoned on two counts: transferring a muitsai to another employer, contrary to section 9, sub-section 1, and B:- For failing to report the change of address of the muitsai. The person with whom the muitsai was staying was summoned for C:- Taking a muitsai
into his employment.
(c) The first case to be heard was successful, the
defendants pleading guilty and admitting that the transfer was intended to be permanent. First defendant was fined $10.00 on each of the charges A and B, and second defendant
was fined $25.00 in respect of charge V.
(d) The second and third cases of this kind came up
for hearing together, and the defendants were discharged on all counts. The facts of the case were admitted, but the
magistrate held that, inasmuch as there was no evidence to show that a permanent transfer was intended, he could not
see his way to convict on either charge A or charge U. With regard to charge B, he held that the wording of the Regulation
was not such as to compel an employer to report a temporary
change of address.
(e) The advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was
sought, and the magistrate was upheld on both points. The
fourth case of this kind, in which the circumstances were
similar to those of the last two, was then withdrawn by
permission of the magistrate.
(f) In view of these cases, it has been considered
desirable to alter Regulation 5 (1)d, and a new regulation
in