Ingham v Hie Lee [1912] HCA 66

15 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 267

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

INGHAM . ' % r 2 3 ' . APPELLANT; INFORMANT, AND HIE LEE . i i 5 " F S . RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Factory—Restriction of hours of labowr—* Work," meaning of—Construction of H.C. or A. Statute—Ambiguity—Factories and Shops Act 1905 (Vict.) (No. 1975), secs. 5, 19) 42, —S

Mertnourye,

Oct. 15, 16.

Where the langnage of an enactment is susceptible of two constructions, regard must be had to the general object and purpose of the Act, and, if the act done is not within the general purview of the Statute, regard may be had Griffith C.J., to the consequences of either construction, If one construction will do '"¢ Barton J- manifest injustice and the other avoid it, the latter construction should be adopted.

Sec. 42 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (Vict.) provides that "in any factory or work-room where any Chinese person is at any time employed +. . no person shall work for himself or for hire or reward, either directly or indirectly, or shall employ or authorize or permit any person whomsoever to work on any day before half-past seven o'clock in the morning or after five o'clock in the evening."

By sec. 5 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 "any office building or place in which . . . one or more Chinese persons are or is employed directly or indirectly in working in any handicraft" is a "factory," and that term "handicraft " includes 'any work whatsoever done in any laundry

and whether or not done in preparing or manufacturing articles for trade or sale."

Held, that the word "work" in sec. 42 means "work at factory work," and, therefore, that the section does not apply to a Chinese ironing his own shirt during the prohibited hours in a Chinese laundry.

spat

268 HIGH COURT (1912.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Madden C.J.): Ingham v. Hie — Lee, (1912) V.L.R., 329; 34 A.L.T., 41, affirmed.