CLOSING HOURS OF SMALL SHOPS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 10, 6 October 1928, Page 8

CLOSING HOURS OF SMALL SHOPS

A TEST CASE FAILS

numerous fines imposed

“It is admitted that the Shops and Offices Act is somewhat complicated, said | Mr. AV. J. Mountjoy (Inspector of r ac- , tories) in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday at the end of lengthy argument by Mr. W. Perry in a test case on the hours at which small shopkeepers should close. “That puts it mildly,” rejoined the Magistrate (Mr. E. Page). Thirty-eight shopkeepers were charged, some with selling cigarettes after hours, and others with failing to observe a statutory half-holiday. Some were called upon to answer to both charges. Mr. Perry, who appeared for a number of the defendants, admitted the facts, his defence being wholly a legal one. Concerning the present position ot the small shopkeepers it was stated that they had fixed their own hours by means ot a requisition carried by a two-thirds majority and later gazetted. In regard to all shops that sold tobacconists’ requisites, it had been laid down that tobacconists hours should be kept in regard to the sale of such requisites. The closing hours of small shopkeepers in respect to these had been fixed at 7 p.m. for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. 10 p.m. for Friday, and 10.30 p.m. for Saturday. If the shop observed a Saturday halfholiday then the'second late night might be taken on Wednesday. Mr. Perry submitted the Gazette notice was “ultra vires,” and was invalid, because it was not in conformity with, and was beyond, the powers conferred by the Statute. He submitted that if a shopkeeper chose Friday as his half-holiday, then no provision was made for the second late night. , , To this Mr. Mountjoy replied that no application had ever beeu made for 1' riday as a half-holiday. Friday, he said, was such a busy day that no one would be likely to lose business by closing then. , , The Magistrate observed that it was entirely the shopkeepers’ own fault if they had made no provisions regarding the Friday half-day. He thought that no useful purpose would be served in reserving his decision. The shopkeepers had sent their requisition to the Minister, and had they desired it. they could have made a compensating advantage for the loss of the second late night. In his view, the requisition and the gazette notice were quite clear. Should a shopkeeper choose Friday as his half-holiday, lie lost the benefit of one late night. That, however, did not invalidate either the requisition or the gazette notice. Therefore, Mr. Perry's argument must fail.

The following fines were inflicted. In cases where there was more than one charge, defendants were fined on the first, and convicted and discharged on the others :— Young How Brothers, Wong Poy, Sing On Tie, Oriental Fruit Co., £7 each; Joe Lee Brothers and G. Wah Kae, £3 each; Ah Leong, Chew Tong, F. Clewer, Ging Lee, Helena Grounsell, Joe Ring Lum, Joe Kwong Lee, Kwok Brothers, Kwong Man Lee, Loo Jung, Peter Chan, Sun Tai Wall, Y. C. Young, £2 each;; H. E. Holt, Hop Chong, Jack Shing, Jim Pee, Kwong Try Chong, On Lee, Soon Lai, F. J. Warburton, Wong She and Co., Wong Tong, W. N. Yuen Chong and Co., and Young Bros and Co., £1 each; G. England (who pleaded not guilty), and Miss S. Stevenson, 10s. each; Mrs. A. Latimer was ordered to pay costs, 10s.;; B. Smith, whose charge was that of failing to close his grocer’s store at 12.30 p.m. on the Saturday half-holi-day, was fined 10s. It was stated that he had allowed an assistant to deliver goods after closing time. Ying Lee, being in the shop of another defendant, was convicted and discharged.