SUNDAY TRADING

Evening Star, Issue 21037, 26 February 1932, Page 9

SUNDAY TRADING

* SALE OF ICE CREAMS SHOPKEEPER FINED A case of interest to shopkeepers was heard before Mr J. It. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Police Court this morning, when James Stewart Algie pleaded not guilty to a charge of keeping his shop open on Sunday, February 14, for the purpose of transacting biisiness. Constable Schruffer said that he had had the shop under observation on the Sunday afternoon, and he noticed a large number of people coming out of the shop carrying ice creams. When spoken to defendant said he could not stop the people, and he would not shut the shop door. The defendant, his wife, and two other people were behind the counter serving. He appeared to take no action to stop the people leaving the shop. Constable Devereux gave corroborative evidence. To counsel, witness said he was watching the shop about a quarter of an hour. There, was an unbroken stream of people coming out of the shop. Counsel submitted that no offence had been disclosed by the police, evidence, and he put forward legal argument in support of his contention. The Act laid itvlown that goods must be consumed on the premises, but if a shopkeeper sold an ice cream to a customer and received payment and the customer started to walk out the shopkeeper could not catch him by the scruff of the neck and prevent him from going out. That would be assault. Nor could he seize the ice cream from the customer, which would be theft. The position was a most difficult one, and there was an obligation upon tjie customer as well as on the shopkeeper. Algie kept a card in a prominent place in the shop, and it said that goods purchased on a Sunday must be consumed on the premises.

Defendant in evidence said that on Sunday, February 14, he kept his shop open. He tried to get his customers to consume their ice creams on the premises. If he saw people walking out he tried to prevent them doing so, but on that day there was a rush, and there were many strangers about who were not conversant with the law. He had the local residents fairly well educated by now. On that day there were excursion trains from Invercargill in Dunedin. To Sub-inspector Cameron, witness said there was no one at the door to stop people going out, but he told people to consume the ice creams on the premises. He had never been able to find out how to stop the people going away. He had not complained to headquarters of the constable’s act. “Do you suggest he did?” asked counsel.

“ I can produce evidence if necessary,” said the sub-inspector. The Magistrate said that the matter must be decided on the manner in which the business was being carried on on the day in question. There were a number of people coming out of the shop. The constable spoke to the defendant and warned him, and he said he could not stop it. There was a notice that ice creams must be consumed on the premises, but defendant could not shelter behind that notice. It was clearly a case of keeping open for transacting business. The defendant was convicted. Sub-inspector Cameron said a number of complaints had been_ received of shops being kept open in that way. Shops in the vicinity wore able to comply with the law, and there was no reason why Mr Algie should not do the same. The defendant was previously fined court costs (10s) for a similar offence.

The Magistrate said he would take into account that it was only ice cream that was sold, and not goods of a more utilitarian character. He would impose a fine of 20s and costs.