TRADE INTERESTS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 26, 31 July 1911, Page 7

TRADE INTERESTS.

RIGHTS OF SHOPKEEPERS. DECISION IN A TEST CASE. Reserved decision in the test case brought by the Labour Department concerning the interpretation to be placed upon a section of the Shops and Offices Act was given by Mr. W. G, Riddell, S.M,, in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Horace J. Ai-chir, draper, of Cuba, street, was charged with having c .Joyed a shop assistant after 9 o'clock 6rt one night during a week. It was admitted that defendant's shop was in a combined district, and that a sale was Mode after 9.15 p,m. > I Sub-flection B of section 3 of tho Shops and Offices Act, 1908, provides that §hop assistants shall not be employed in or about any shop, tf situated in 4 combined district, after I o'clock on the afternoon of the statutory c]os< lflg day", or S o'clock on the eVeflW of one day, or 6 p.m. oft any other working (lay. Later on in the same section it Hffij d i if *?* sh °P is employed at any work in connection with the business of any §h o p later than half , an hdttf after the prescribed closing' hour the employer commits an offend 1H fespfect ef each assistant so employed. Counsel for defendant argued that the facts admitted in the case came within a i P rov^ iras of sub-section 3 of the Act, arid so constituted no offeflce. Counsel said that two interpretation's were sought to be placed oft the Act by the Labour Department within the last two months. The first was a limitation of tlie work done away from the shop. That was the effect, <tf the fittfr circular issued. Afterwards anolh&f circular was issued adopting the position as set out by Mr, Ostler. Sub-section 3of section d of the Act said t "If any assistant is employed at any work in connection with the business of any shaft." There was no necessity for the sUb-section at all if it was an offence for a not to close his shop at 9 o'clock and send his assistant away. With reference to the contention that this half an Hour only applied to work done outside tne" shop, the meaning Was far too wide to bear the interpretation. All that Was retired, if the Legislature wanted to specifically provide for a penalty, and I wanted sub-section a to stand and not I ?,? fac 4VJ. e dj Was to strike out the words I "later Man half an hour." it was duite | clear, looking, afe the Wording of the dectiofl, that -the Legislature intended that i the employer should close his shop at 9 | p « pk, but hs would not be penalised ! if he finished by 9.30. o'clock. ,«?£ m \ M appear" iaid his Worship, "that under the Act of 18S4 a shopkeep* er could transact flew business in the half hour allowed after the hour of closing, but the alteration 1 in language in the Inter. Acts te&rm te show that the half hour Allowed waa intended to be used in completing business cofflmej!fc«d prior to closing time, or for doing other work in connection with the goods then purchased or generally per^ formed in every shop at, or immediately after, the hour &f closing. The provision made to ensure the convenient working of the condition imposed by th« Act without inflicting undue hardship upon either shopkeeper, assistant, or the public. Under the conditions prescribed by subjection S and sub-section 3, if there were rio customers in the shop at' the hour of dosing and a shop assistant was employed !n it for not more than half ati hour at Work connected with the busin^ee ef the shop, no offence would 6e committed. But if while engaged in stidi work a customer entered after the hour Of closing: and was served, then 1 think the assistant Would be employed cdfltfary ttv sub-section B ef section S. 1 do not think," concluded the Magic. trate, "that ( the position is altered if t while attending t& customers who have entered the chop before the hour of closing, 'a, fresh customer enters afttr the hour of closing and is served by a shop assistant, The language used in subsection. 3 is very wide, but 1 doubt if it covers the cae& of * sale after the hour-later than which by sub-section B shop assistants must not be employed." Defendant w&a convicted and fined Is. Mr. Weston, who appeared for defendant, asked that Costs Be fixed on a ecate to perm.it of aft appeal, This was agreed id, A GROCER CONVICTED. Decision was also given in the case in which , Kobert Sinclair, grocer, Wellington, was charged with having employed a carter for more than nine hours e& more than one tidy dxtting the week ended the 24th of June. • Mr. Le Cren pfosecated, and Mr. T, S. Weston appeared for defendant. ■It was admitted that the assistant worked 9£ hours on the Monday and 11 hours en the Saturday,,,but in that week a holiday occurred, and the Assistants' total time for the week was only 46£ hours. After reviewing the evidence his Wor* ship entered a conviction, and fined Sin. clair Is. It Was pointed out that defendant paid his shop assistants 10s per week more than th© award rate, but the magistrate said that it was purely a volunary act on his .part.