Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4124, 21 September 1883, Page 2

No complaint of injustice or oppression need arise over the decision by the Resident Magistrate to-day, imposing a fine of Ciand costs on a couple of itinerant photographers for pumuing their avocation on tho Sunday. Such work could not be defonded on any ground of "necessity or mercy," nor could it bo uphold on the economical plea which in Britain allows hundreds to work every Sunday at iron-making and other processes, which would be prejudicially interfered with wero a complete cessation insisted upon. If tho Sabbath law is to be enforced by making an " example" of tiomeone, a better subject for prosecution could scarcely have been found than ono whoso ordinary avocation is unconnected with the production or supply of the necessaries or comforts of life. In Wellington, a fow weeks ago, some outcry took place because of n similar prosecution directed against the retjiiloiu of confections and light refreshments on Sunday, and recently at Sydney unfavourable comment was provoked by tho magistrate fining several poor heathen Chinamen for working in their gardens on the Christian day of rest. Tho Auckland case was in no way parallel to these—the offender* engaging in work altogether uncalled for, and doing so in the public highways, so as to be an offence and scandal to many. The dofonco advanced on their behalf was very flimsy, and ought to havo been easily seen through. It was contended that the prosecution being laid under an Act of Charles 11., and photography being unknown when the law wag made, tho occupation of photographing could not be contemplated by it. It might ns woll havo been argued that as New Zealand was not then discovered, the law could not apply to it. Besides, the Act makes it an otfenco for any one to follow his "ordinary aroeation" on Sundays, which is a term wide enough to embrace all possible kiods of employment. Tho tine imposed is a light ono, though sufficient punishment on ]>eonlo who imagined they wero acting within the law ; but a much heavier penalty should follow repeated breaches. And this brings us to a matter wo formerly complained of—the bringing of those prosecutions under a statute which the march of events has rendered obsolete. No higher fino than !">* can bo imposed, and in default of recovery by distress, the only alternative is tho stocks. It is plain that such a law is as good as inoperative, sinco it might be Pet at defiance by anyone refusing to pay tho fine ; and wo hope to find new legislation on the subject introduced shortly in this colony.