FRUIT HAWKERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 204, 27 August 1909, Page 6

FRUIT HAWKERS.

s CUT COUNCIL DECISION. PROPOSED MARKET SQUARE. The question of street hawking, more particularly as it applies to the selling of fruit from street barrows, again occupied the attention of the City Council last night. The Finance Committee reported upon the letter (which has been published) received from the Auckland Fruiterers' Protective Association, asking for the abolition of fruit hawkers' stands in the city streets, or that a rental of not less than £1 per week be charged for the same. The traffic inspector reported that the license fee for a street stall is fixed by by-lawßj that no offence is caused by shouting or calling of wares unless the peace and quiet of persons in neighbouring buildings is disturbed; that in no cases are fruit cases allowed to cause an obstruction; that he thinks the public favour the retention of stallholders, and favouring the selling of stands by auction, and suggesting the placing of the stalls all in one place, say Quay-street East, Customs-street East, or round the City Market. The Finance Committee's recommendation was that this matter be referred to the By-laws Committee, with a view to the fees for street stands being increased. The Committee also stated that it had resolved to ask the three city members of Parliament to meet the committee at its next meeting to discuss the matters on which the Council desires legislative enactment, including regulation )of street hawkere, billiardroom licenses, etc. Mr. Nerheny contended that if they had to wait for legislation they might have to wait for a good while. They should at least be able to say where the stands were to be placed. He moved as an amendment that the matter be referred back to the committee to again report on the subject. Mr. Casey seconded the amendment. Mr. Bagnall said he agreed that something should be done, since the principal streets were being used to a large extent for the purpose of carrying on the fruithawking business. Mr. Mackay said the Finance Committee was shirking its duty, and the report was altogether too wishy-washy to accept. Mr. Tudehope said he heard it mooted that some of the shopkeepers were interested in these barrows, and owned some of them. He did not know what truth there was in the report. Mr. Smeeton said it was not for wan. of consideration that the Finance Committee had not been able .to make a more satisfactory report. They had even consulted the Council's legal adviser. He thought there had been some abuse of the privileges allowed to street hawkers, and had heard that a good many of the barrows were the property of one man. The report was referred back to the Finance Committee for a fuller report.