SUNDAY TRADING

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3000, 10 February 1917, Page 16

SUNDAY TRADING

AMERICAN LOUNGE BAR CASE

A CONVICTION

Mi 1 ; S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the Magistrate's Court in the caso heard on January 20, brought by- ,tho . police against Walter Roland Gates, proprietor of tho Loung'o Bar, Street, for keeping his premises "open on a Sunday for the purpose of trading, contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of tho Police Offences Act, 1908. In his written judgment the Magistrate said tho defendant admitted that he was vending light refreshments in his shop on Sunday, December 17, last, within full view of all those passing to and fro in Willis Street. Defendant, however, contended that ho came within the proviso of Section 17,' in that tho selling of tho' wares was a work either of necessity or charity, or perhaps both, but tho onus of establishing that claim rested on tho defendant. The question whether defendant's calling came within the proviso was one of mixed law and fact. It depended partly on the construction of Section 17, a\id partly on circumstances 'under which defendant carried on his business. - "Every Sunday," said His Worship, "there are a limited number of people arriving in Wellington by train and boat, and for the most 'part these can be accommodated at local hotels and boardinghouses. Some few are returning to tlioir own homes. Every fine Sunday several thousand leave Wellington for adjacent-, seaside resorts, for Trentham Camp, and for Lower Hutt. These travel by boat, car, or train. During the daytime on each Sunday tho emigration from Wellington greatly exceed those'arriving, even 'counting the soldiers from Trentham who come to Wellington. are a goodly number of persons living in rooms who take their meals out. These can ho accommodated in the . local hotels, restaurants, and boardinghouses. Furthermore, those residents needing tho same can always lay in a store of .such things as defendant lifts to soil. Those who have the status of travellers can satisfy their wants .at hotels, restaurants, and boardinghouses." After quoting several authorities dealing with the Sabbath Day observance, His Worship went on to say that Section 17 of the Police Offences Act : and other cognate legislation ivas passed to secure for the subject as far as conveniently possible a weekly day of rest, it boing recognised that such a day is necessary for the physical wellbeing of tho race. Its dominant object was not Sabbath observance. Anything that tended to break .in on that day of rest must be rigidly 'scrutinised. Defendant's was not expressly exempted under the 1 proviso of Section 17. It could not reasonably be said that any of the wares vended bv defendant were necessary or the subject of charity. .They could be. done -without by the healthy; they were not necessary for tho 6ick. Persons living in Wellington could provide themselves with such wares as defendant sold. The few strangers who visited Wellington on Sunday could be provided for in the hotels, boardingnouses, and restaurants. The hotels and restaurants were open for the purpose of supplying meals on Sundays. The trade carried on by defendant was not mentioned by the proviso unless 'it could bo brought under the words "necessity or charity." The fact that defendant's calling was not expressly mentioned was a strong argument for excluding it from the benefit of tho proviso,' unless it clearly and reasonably could bo brought nnder the terms "work of iiecessity and charity.." "In my opinion," said llis Worship, "defendant's calling is neither a work of necessity or charity. If defendant can ply his calling on the Sunday, why should not all provision shops be kept open to supply the needs of improvident housekeepers ? The cases of tea-rooms and such'like places at seaside resorts are not in the same category as defendant's calling. At these places hundreds, if not thousands, of tlie inhabitants of Wellington, were there on tho Sunday, and they were away from their respective homes. Theso could be dealt with when they arose." The defendant was convicted and fined £1, and was ordered to pay costs, 7s. OTHER SUNDAY TRADING CASES. Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., tho Marble Bar, Ltd., amjl G. Gorgensen and Nellie Nightingale, connected with, tho Le Grand Bar, was charged _ with* Sunday trading. Mr. A: AY. Blair appeared for tho Marble Bar Co., and Mr. E*. M. Beechey for the Lo Grand. Both cases were taken together by consent. Mr H Gardner, managing director of the Marble' Bdr, Ltd., giving evidence, stated the place wiSs open oil Sunday, and Sunday trading had been tho practice for tho past five years, lie company worked under the tearoom and restaurant award. The hours on Sunday were from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., and tho menu on Sunday was in every respect tho same as on any other day. Last Sunday week tho returns from the three establishments of the company showed that tho equivalent of 4000 people -were served. People camo for lunch on Sunday iust the samo as on any_ week day. church people visited tho establishments, and recently ho had been asked to supply Sunday breakfast for a church organisation. 1 G. Gorgensen, connected with the Le Grand Bar, also gavo evidence supporting tho general statement of the previous witness. . / After hearing further evidence the Magistrate reserved his decision.