Magistrate's Court.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 3, 28 September 1907, Page 8

Magistrate's Court.

. ■'.WHAT IS A SHOP?' . '.' '-.'.." A.' question. 1 of vital importance, to. restaurant keepers was involved in the case against George Pimiock, of the Trocadero,.r decided by Dr. McArthur at ■.the.i Magistrates? Court yesterday. ' i.j'.llis [worship rSai(l v .tliis, was an infor- , mation laid..uy the. Inspector of Factories against-George Pimiock-in that, ho being the occupier of a shop within .the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act,''.l9olv •.and:.its. amendments, cm•ploycd certain .shop assistants and failed to allow thorn a half-holiday for the. remainder, of the day from one o'clock in the afternoon on, any working day in the week ending on August 2-[,< 1007.'' Mr. Herdman admitted .that, the girls employed were waitresses and were not allowed a half-holiday during the' said week. . He contended, howover, that the defendant's establishment was not a shop, and that, therefore,, the persons named'in the information were not shop; assistants. He further contended. that upon' an examination of the provisions of the Act tho establishment did not. come under the provisions, but was exempt. .- It was given in- evidence, and .admitted by the defendant, that meals-were sup. plied at all hours in the establishment from 6 o'clock h.m'.. until ' midnight. The definition of "shop" wa sauy .building or. place in which goods were kept or exposed or offered for sale. In Le Cren v. Jones, continued his worship, he held that a place where riieals were supplied and sold was ; a shop within the .meaning of the Act, and he saw no reason to alter that opinion. Mr. Herdman contended that under, the Act there wrec two classes of shops, one coming under the provisions of Section 4. and oiie under the provisions of Section 35. Thc'defendant did. not-come under. Section 1, and counsel contended that as ho (defendant) supplied lodging as well as meals; he did not come under.Section 15.' He relied on the word' "exclusively", in Section 15 (a) (i),,and contended that the defendant was. exempt from the provisions of the statute. His worship did'not think the fact of supplying lodging as well as meals took the defendant outside Section 15.:. Many of the ordinary refreshment rooms advertised meals, so much; beds, so. much. He icould not be said to come under the Licensing Acts, and in his worship's opinion his establishment was a refreshment room, and did -not change its character by reason of thofact that lodging was supplied. He considered that the persons named in the information- were shop assistants who came under the provisions of Section 15 of ,the Act, and were entitled to a weekly half-holiday after the hour of one o'clock on one. working day. The information, concluded his lordship, would be sustained, and the defendant fined ,£2 and costs. Oii the application of Mr. Herdman, security was fixed for appeal. • • -- CHARGE AGAINST A CABMAN.: John Lane,'' driver of. "a, license! vehicle, wa.? charged with having, refused to carry in his cab Walter 13diKird Pearson. It was stated'that Mr. -Pearson wished to go to tho Wellington' •-Taranaki footbal. match, and' went to where there were throe cabs standing. He spoke to tho first cabman in the line who st.ited that lie was engaged, whereupon Mr. 'Pearson, .went to the second-cab 'and asked tho driver to tako him', to the' Athletic Park. When getting into the cab ho said to the cabman "P believe thol-fard is 3s„" to-which the cabman replied that '-o wanted- 'ts., and Mr. Pearson was obliged tb goto the Pavk'bv tram. Ho eventually retried the matter to thj City Council. , Par the defence' Lane stated, that he had made' an engagement in the'morning'for the same lime as Mv. Pearson camo to' him, and could not fulfil anv other contract than the one. he had made. He had another encasement . for 3 o'clock. 'Judgment was reserved' until October' i. Mr. Johnson appeared for Lane.