The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3742, 13 July 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1883.

From the Evening Post wo learn that a question of Sunday trading has lately been decided by the Resident Magistrate, Mr Hardcastle, at Wellington. Homy Alexander, of Willis-street, was charged "that on the 17th of June, 1883, being then and there a person above the age of 14 years, and being then and there a tobacconist, he did then and there do and exercise certain worldly labour, business, and work of his ordinary (sailing as tobacconist aforesaid, being the Lord's Day, to \rit, the day aforesaid, by then and there selling to Charles Richards, one stick of tobacco ; to Frederick Fisher, one stick of tobacco ; and to Charles Dustan, one stick of tobacco, the same not being a work of necessity or charity " MiEdward Shaw appeared for the accused, who admitted the facts, but contended that the Act of Charles 11. was not in force in New Zealand. Counsel argued the case at length, contending that there was nothing to show that the Act under which the information had been laid was in force in this clony. Mr Shaw said that admitting the law was in force, it was not right that one solitary section should be pitched upon for tho purpose of laying a charge against a respectable tradesman. The &ot of 1858 provided that the laws of England should, so far as was applicable, be in force in New Zealand. The Act of Charles 11. was not applicable to a country like New Zealand, and ho (Mr Shaw) therefore contended that a conviction could not be secured under the measure. If the law was in force here the defendant could lay a charge against the Minister for Public Works for allowing tho trains to run on Suuda3 r s, and the police could receive a penalty from every one who failed to attend public worship on those days, whilst the Union Company could be proceeded against for running their steamers on the seventh day of the week. Hβ (Mr Shaw) was no advocate for Sunday trading, but he thought that if it was decided the Act of CharloH 11. was in force here, something - should be dono by the Legislature in the direction of amending the law. In conclusion, ho fiubmitted that the Court could not decide that the section in question was in force without concluding that the whole Act was in the same position. Mr Hardcautlo, in giving judgment, pointed out that it had been shown that tho Act was in force in the neighbouring colony of Victoria, and that the Tippling , Act applied to New Zealand in the same way. ■ In his opinion, the law of Charles 11. -was just as applicable ti> this colo.iy as the Tippling Act, and he must hold the defendant guilty of an infringement of King Charles' Act. A fino of 5s and. costs would be inflicted. Mr Shaw wished the Court to state the alternative. His Worship replied that in this case he would not mention tho penalty for default of payment. There was a provision in the Act for such a contingency. On tho application of counsel, execution was stayed for the purpose of enabliDg the decision to be appealed against.