SUNDAY TRADING

Evening Star, Issue 16629, 11 January 1918, Page 5

SUNDAY TRADING

_ DT AW AMERICAN' BAR.” 1 PtJBLIO NECESSITY CLAIMED. "BODEGA” MANAGER CONVICTED. _ Argument was brought in iha Police CourM-o-day to convince Mr Young, S.M., soft icecream /Bb-awbemos and cream, etc., was not an offence against law, but the satisfaction by *ne vendors of a public necessity. The specific matters before the Court were three charges against Edward Seaxle of Bodega American "Bar open ■; lS r Purpose of trading on Sunday. f~ r defended, and Sub-inspec-Mathxeson prosecuted. Shajiahan gave -evidenco as to toe Bodega bax being open on the evening Sunday, the 23rd of December. Witness asked defendant if he wae carrying OTr business as usual, and ho replied: Yes. It would pay to be fined 20s and . costs. I cater for about 1,100. customers on Sundays.” The customers at the time JBere being served with soft drinks and loes. The place was also open on Sunday, the 30th December. Sergeant Scandrett stated that he saw the place open on Sunday, the 6th of January. The defendant said he hoped the police would visit the other shops, so ■that they would all be served alike. Air Hay said the defence was that the defendant carried on a which was " a work of necessity.”* He would submit evidence to show that it was necessary, not _ only in the interests of public convenience, but of public need, that a shop of this class should be carried on as it had been. The burden of proving that it was not a necessity was bn the police. This man’s premises were classified, under the Arbitration Act as a tea and luncheon room, and his Sunday hours were from 10 to 10. He supplied tea and hot pies and the like, and also cold drinks where requested. It might bo argued that these American drinks were not a necessity, but he would point out that they had now become a standard bodily need, and there were a multitude of shops serving such drinks all over the Dominion, while the Government had installed them in camp. The carbonated drink had,.indeed, largely displaced- tea, and had, in fact, become a necessity—not an absolute necessity, but a relative 'necessity—to the public. There was also the question of public convenience. There were very many girls and others living in. rooms who got their Sunday meals at such places. They could get them as cheaply nowhere else. A shop like this profaned the Sunday in no sense, hut rather served a public, need, and it was stated that many people who attended church satisfied their appetite by the use of these drinks after service. Finally, counsel pointed out that, in order to keep within the law, the proprietary had specially excluded lollies and luxuries of that kind, and these American drinks must be construed at this date as a “reasonable necessity.” Mr Hay further quoted the remark of Lord Kenyon, Chief Justice, in the eighteenth century case against a baker: “I am for an observation of the Sabbath, but not for a Pharisaical observation of it. But must the laborious part of the community, who are entitled to some indulgence for the labors of the pastweek, fare harder on that than, on any other dav?” • His Worship pointed out that this case had nothing whatever to do with drinks. Mr Hay said it referred to food. But it could not be contended that, because there were fountains where people could get water, that therefore there was no necessity for the sale of carbonated drinks. It was, as he said, a relative and not an absolute necessity, and the point of “necessity” had to be considered in a relative sense—namely, in relation to the habits and convenience of the public. The defendant, manager of the Bogeda, said that the place was classified under the Arbitration Court award as tea and luncheon rooms. He did not stock sweets or such things as would be looked on as luxuries. People living in rooms came to his place on Sundays for a light breakfast and a light tea. Assistants working in tea rooms, who did not have their homes here, were also" customers cm Sundays. Crosa-examined by Sub-inspector Mathioson, witness said it was a necessity to remain open on Sunday to supply the travelling public with American drinks. Icecream was a necessity. Sabina Ford, formerly assistant secretary of the Hotel, Restaurant, and Tea Rooms Workers’ Union, said that there were hundreds of girls living in rooms in Dunedin, and they patronised a place like the Bodega, where they could get a cheap meal on a Sunday. They could not afford to pay Is 6d' for a meal. Mary O’Neill, chief cook at an hotel, , said a place like the Bodega, where girls could get a cheap meal on a Sunday, was a necessity. His Worship eajd the supply of meals, even light meals, if bona fide ordered, would probably be' “a work of necessity.” As to what constituted a light meal was not necessary for him to determine in this case. It might be that afternoon tea. bona fide ordered, might be a light meal. The evidence in this case showed that what was supplied 1 were ice-creams, American drinks, and strawberries and cream by themselves, and net in any way connected with what might be described as a light meal. Not being a light meal, the supply of these articles by themselves was not “a work of necessity.” That being so, . the. defendant must be convicted. He would be fined £1 and costs (7s) on each information.