Elizabeth Naylor (buried 1915)

Worthing Gazette, Wednesday June 11th 1890

Breaches of the Factory Act

Elizabeth Naylor, milliner and dressmaker, of South-Street, was summoned for unlawfully employing two young women and a "young person" during prohibited hours, to wit, after four o’clock on a Saturday afternoon, in contravention of the Factory act – A "young person" is defined by the act as a person who had ceased to be a child, but is under eighteen; "child" meaning a person under fourteen.  Mr Jasper Redgrave, one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Factories, appeared in support of the summonses; Mr TA Goodman, solicitor, of Brighton, representing Miss Naylor, on whose behalf he pleaded guilty to each of the three charges.  Mr Redgrave said that, as Mr Goodman had pleaded guilty, he need not detain the Bench.  It was pretty well known that there were certain regulations as to workrooms, and that work should cease at four o’clock on one afternoon in the week. In the present case he would only ask for a nominal penalty. Mr Goodman said no one more regretted being obliged to answer these summonses than Miss Naylor herself.  It was a most unfortunate position for her, as he would explain to the bench.  This Act different from many others, such as the Licensing Acts and Town Police Clauses Act, under which it was necessary to prove some knowledge of the offence on the part of the defendant before a conviction could be secured.  But under the Factory Act a person was liable simply as occupier,  whether he or she knew anything of the alleged offence or not, the only provision-and a very proper one-being that the accused could shield himself by bringing before the Bench the person who was in charge of the premises, and who was really guilty of the offence.  Miss Naylor went to London to attend a wedding, and was absent three days, leaving her manager, the principal dressmaker, in charge, with strict instruction, that the Act was in no way to be infringed.  Miss Naylor had been in business for twenty years,  and this was the only time she had been bought before the Bench to answer a charge of this kind.  The regulations were hung up in the workroom, and Miss Naylor had been most particular, not only that those regulations should be faithfully fulfilled, but that the young ladies should really leave some few minutes before the specified time. In the absence of Miss Naylor her forewoman chose, from some reason of her own, or perhaps careless of the Act, to keep these girls something like half an hour or so beyond the specified time.  They could if they chose throw the blame upon the forewoman by bringing her there, but she had written a most penitent letter, and they did not propose to do so.  The Inspector had gone so far as to say frankly that he would ask for a nominal penalty only, and he hoped he would go still further and ask that the summonses might be withdrawn upon payment of the costs.  Mr Redgrave said he was afraid he could not altogether withdraw the matter from the jurisdiction of the Bench, upon the payment of the costs.  He had considerable experience of dressmaker’s workrooms for the past twenty years, and without saying a word about Miss Naylor, he knew that there was no class of girls whose interests required more looking after than young dressmakers.  That was a general remark, and was not intended to apply to the present defendant.  The chairman said the board could not allow the summonses to be withdrawn, though they would only inflict in each case a nominal penalty of 1s, together with the costs, 11s 2d in each case, making in all £1 16s 6d – Miss Naylor paid the money.