THE FACTORIES ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 180, 31 July 1900, Page 2

THE FACTORIES ACT.

Mr H. W. Brabant, stipendiary magistrate, gave judgment at the Police Court thia morning In the case brought by the Inspector of Factories v. Chas. W. Colgan, of Karangahape Road, for a breach of the Shop and Shop Assistants Act, 1894, wita failing to close his shop on the 18th July, being the weewly half -holiday."

His Worship said: The circumstances are peculiar. The defendant occupies premises on the Karangahape Eoad, where fie keeps a tobacconist's shop facing the street, behind the shop he has a hair-cutting room, and behind that again a public billiardroom. On the weekly half-holiday he is required by law to shut the shop and the haircutting room, but not the billiard-room. There Is only one outer door to the premises, which opens into a passage from which access is had to the shop, to the hair-cutting room, to the billiard-room, and to the stairs by which the living apartments are reached. There is a wide opening without a door connecting the passage and the shop, and doors open from the passage into the hair-cutting arid billiardrooms. On the half-holiday the defendant shuts his shop by letting down a bamboo bund between the passage and the shop, and.by placing a wooden bar across; and the hair-cutting room by locking the door which- leads into that room. The Inspector of Factories does not consider this a sufficient shutting of the shop within the meaning of the statute. The defendant has offered to have shutters made or to comply with any reasonable demand of the Inspector as to alteration of the premises. The Inspector, however, will not be satisfied with anything less than an outer door for the shop alone and apart entirely from tne entrance to the billiard-room. I am asked to rule whether or not It Is necessary that, in order to comply with the provisions of the statute for the closing of-the shop and hair-cutting room, there must be a separate outer door connecting with the E*eet. If I had to decide whether the present mode of closing the shop with a bamboo blind and a bar was a sufficient compliance with the Act, I should certainly hesitate before de«" eiding that it was; but I am not prepared to co as far as the Inspector asks me and to cay that a shop must have aseparate door opening on to the street to ensure its being properly closed as required by the Act. I tan see no reason against the internal separation of the premises, provided that the ' apartment or apartments forming the shop are closed in a reasonably secure manner against the admission of the public. I am led to this conclusion by the definition of the word "shop" in the Act, where the meaning Is given as "any building or portion o^a building or place in which goods are exposed or offered for sale by retail." Then It seems to me that the Interpretation contended for by the Inspector would pre-, jj vent shops being kept in arcades and similar places. Also the cases cited by Mr Cotter appear to me to be very much to the point It is. true that these were decisions on the construction of sections 3 and 9 of the (English) Licensing Act, 1874, an Act for regulating the sale of alcoholic liquors and , not expressly providing for the closing of j shops. That Act allows the sale of liquors by grocers, and provides that "all premises In which intoxicating liquors are sold shall be closed at 10 o'clock." In the case of Brlgden v.. Hayes the defendant was a draper and a grocer having a license to sell liquors. The drapers' and grocers' shops were separated from each other by a partition in which there were gaps left open by day; after 10 o'clock at night the lights:.. were put out in the grocer's shop, the outer : door was shut, and the openings in the par-tition-were blocked up, the only commum- ; cation between the two shops being the lit-lug-rooms at the bacU. The draper's shop remained open after 10 for the sale of drapery goods. This was held to be a compliance with the statute. The other case cited by Mr Cotter is also In defendant's favour, though the circumstances are different. It ' may be observed thnt the English Licensing Act directs that the "premises" shall be closed, and still the Court of Q.B. held that the closing of the apartment where liquors were sold was sufficient. In my opinlMi the letting down of the bamboo blind was not. a sufficient closing, but that defendant did all ho could fairly be expected to do m offering to alter the premises by putting up shutters and blocking up the window shown on the plan as being n communication between the bllllard-room and the haircutting room.