AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 51, 28 February 1918, Page 8

AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK

SALE OF "SMOKES" BY OTHER THAN TOBACCONISTS MAGISTRATE'S IMPORTANT DECISION. The question of selling tobacco and cigarettes by restaurant keepers, fruiterers, and others after 8 p.m., was involved in an improtant reserved judgment delivered by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in tha Magistrate's Court today, in the .case in which the Inspector of Labour (Mr. F. V. Sanderson) proceeded against Harry Davis on two informations under the Shops and Offices Act, 1908—(a) that the the defendant, being the 1 occupier of a shop, did, on 13th December, sell cigarettes after 8 p.m., such hour being the closing hour for tobacconists' shops; and (b) the defendant did, during the week ending 15th December, fail to close his shop on one working day as required by the Act. In his judgment, the Magistrate said : —"There were before the passing of tho Act, there are now, certain callings, such, for example, as hotelkeepers, fruiterers, grocers, restaurant and marble-bar keepers, etc, wherein were sold smokers' requisites in small quanj titles and as side lines. Those carrying on these callings are in no sense tobacconists, nor are they authorised by the Statute, even by combining with ttibac-. conists, to fix the hours of closing applicable to that trade. A clear distincI tion is drawn between-a trader who sells | smokers' requisites as side lines and a tobacconist who sells all smokers' requisites, and, in addition, usually carries on a hairdressing saloon." After dealing with the law on that point, his Worship said: "The defendant is a confectioner and dairyman, who, in conjunction therewith, runs a marble bar and restaurant. He cannot in any i sense be called a tobacconist. He is to all intents and purposes a restaurant keeper. He admits that at 8.35 p.m. on the day alleged, he sold a packet of yellow Three Castles cigarettes to a customer Mien standing in his Ehop. If the notice had been intra vires an offence would have been committed. The notice is, however, ultra vires, in that it alleges it has been issued .pursuant to a requisition signed by persons who do not carry on tho business of tobacconist. The requisition has been signed by vendors of smokers' requisites. Such persons are not necessarily tobacconists, but sell these products- asl side lines in conjunction with their.more usual trades. Tho selling of cigarettes cannot reasonably be said to be a trade allied to those mainly carried on by the defendant. It may here be remarked there has been no general requisition signed by a majority of all the shopkeepers in the City of Wellington pursuant to sub-section 1 of section 25 of the principal Act. "If then the present decision is correct, there has not yet been fixed any hours for the closing of tobacconists' shops, and those carrying on other trades who sell smokers' requisites as a side line may sell these requisites during the hours during which they are authorised to carry on their own respective trades." Both, informations were accordingly dismissed, and his Worship concluded by saying: "The legislation relating to the closing of shops and offices seems to have fallen into a chaotic condition, and requires restating in a simpler form. At present, instead of being a guide, it is a pitfall; instead of being simple, it is complex; its correct interpretation is difficult and almost past finding out."