The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-12-23
CHILD LABOR LIMIT
Interesting Statistics In Su-
preme Court Opinion.
Written by Justice Clark In Case In Which No
Error Was Found In Award Ct ST, 900
To Nine Year Old Boy.

The Supreme Court in it's decision yes
terday, Judge Clark writing the opinion,
passed upon an interesting case touching
child labor in factories.
The opinion Of the court in its con-
Guiding portion gives some most inter-
esting satisfies with regard to the child
labor regulations in various parts of the
world. This is a question of the day in
North Carolina and this will be read with
interest.
William Fitzgerald, by his next friend,
sued the Alma Furniture Company of
Davidson county for damages and the jury
awarded him $1,000. The boy was nine
years old. One day when his father was
absent he went to the factory to get
work. He was given twenty-five cents a
day and his work was ''tailing a moul-
Ger" The next day he tailed the planer
and the next day at 1 o'clock was put
to work on the sander. He worked there
an hour before he got hurt. While the
man running the sander was away the bow
testified that he leaned against the ma
chine, did not think he was in danger.
laid his hand on it and had his hand
mashed.
In the Superior Court the judge charged
the jury: IF the jury find from the evil
dence that the plaintiff at the time of
the injury was a boy nine years and five
months OF age; that he had only the in
telligenca Of an ordinary boy of his age;
that ne mad never seen a machine like
the one he was helping to operate until
l O'Clock of the day he was injured; that
he did not have the capacity to under
stand the mechanism Of the machine or
its dangerous parts; that because Of his
want OF age and experience, and While
waiting for the man operating, he threw
his arm upon the machine to rest him
self, and tor the further reason that the
defendants agent who employed him had
failed TO warm him against danger, then
it will be the duty Of the jury to con-
slider these matters in passing upon the
question as to whether the plaintiff was
guilty of such negligence as the law
terms 'con%tributory negligence which
would Justify the jury in finding the sec
ond issue 'yes2' The Supreme Court finds
no error in this charge.
IN concluding this opinion of the court
Justice Clark writes: ct is illegal TO
employ any child in a factory under fiji
teen years Of age in Florida. Rhode Is
land and Washington; or under fourteen
years of age in Colorado, Connecticut
Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New
hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming
New South Wales. Ontario and Sweden.
In Manitoba, it is illegal to employ child
rem in any factory under sixteen wears
of age. In Ohio it is illegal to employ
in a factory girls under sixteen and bows
under fifteen. In Louisiana, New jersey
and Quebec the age limit is: girls four
teen, boys twelve. In Pennsylvania. Ger
many and South Australia, the age limit
is thirteen. In the following it is illegal
TO employ children in any factory under
twelve years of age; California, Maine.
Maryland, North Dakota, Austria. Bel
GUM, France, Holland. Norway and
Switzerland. In Great Britain, the limit
is eleven years and in Denmark ten wears.
During the present year Kentucky and
some others nave enacted similar laws
making fourteen years the limit.
and Virginia has adopted the twelve
years limit. With this consensus
OF opinion in nearly the entire
civilized world. it might be that it would
not have been error if the judge had held
that it was negligence per Sc to nut 2
child of the tender age of nine years to
work on a dangerous machine. which he
had never seen before, without anv in
structions of warning and to leave
him there by himself without stonnine
the machine. But, however that NAV no
it certainly was not error to leave tho
! question of negligence to the Jury with
the charge given in connection Herewith
which was very favorable to the defend
ant. No error"