THE SHOPS AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9365, 14 March 1896, Page 8

THE SHOPS AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday before I Mr H. W. Bishop, S. M., A. and C Simpson were charged with tailing to close their | tobacconists' shop, Colombo street, on the ' evening of Thursday, March sth, and A. Simpson was charged with obstructing the Inspector appoin ed under the Acb while in the execution of his duby. Mr Stringer appeared for che Labour Department, Mr Byrne for the defendants. J. Lomas, Inspector, staged that about 8 p.m. on the day namtid he saw a light in the back of defendants' shop. He went towards the door, which was not quite closed, intending to enter. The defendant, A. Simpson, was standing close by, smoking along pipe, which he poked in witness' face. Witness entered the shop, and the defendant named Cook hold or him by the shoulder to prevent him. Not being able to do this, he suatched a stick from witness, and threw ib into the street. There was a lighc in the hairdressiug saloon, which is separated from tbe front shop by a 7fb high partition, and C. Simpson and a man were there. Witness took out his book to pub down the name of the man when the gas was turned off. A. Simpson theu locked the street door and told witness he could find his way out as best he might. The door, was, however, unlocked in a short time and witness came away. For the de"fence, A. Simpson said he and his brother went to the shop to search for a receipt, and on the way were joined by the third person, who went in to read the paper. A. Simpson went out smoking a "churchwarden" and stood ou the footpath. Mr Lomas came up, and in pushing his way in ran up against the long pipe. Just then the door, which had been looked, was opened from the inside and Mr Lomas went in, bhe defendant, who did not know who he was, tried to prevent him. On getting inside he saw ib was the Inspector. He admitted turning out the gas and throwing out the stick. He did so because he was annoyed ab the Inspectors mode of proceeding ; he though: his identity and business should have been made known. The shop belonged to defendant's mother. 0. Simpson and W. F«irrall corroborated this statement so far as what took place inside was concerned. Mr Byrne submitted that as the shop did not, as alleged in the information belong to defendants, there was no case against them; that the Inspector had no right to cuter without first demanding entrance, and that the outer door having been locked the shop was closed. Mr Stringer, in reply, arguethat under the Act the defendants, being managers, were the shopkeepers ; as to the actual closing ib was for bhe Court to decide on the evidence. There could be no doubt that the Inspector.had been interfered with while on duty, and he had a right to enter without first demaudiog entrance, though it might be desirable he should do so. Judgment was held over.