THE HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9774, 22 March 1895, Page 5

THE HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESd ASSOCIATION.J

Gisborne, Thursday. Saturday was the day appointed for the weekly half-holiday in Gisborne. Shopkeepers having complained bitterly of the loss of trade, the Borough Council resolved a fortnight ago to get the day altered, if possible, to Thursday. They have been puzzled to know how it can be done, and have been in communication with the Minister of Labour, with whom the Mayor had an interview on Wednesday. On Wednesday afternoon the; Mayorproclaimed Thursday a public half-holiday. The half holiday was strictly observed this afternoon, and the shops will open all day next Saturday.

[BY telegraph.—own correspondent.] Wellington, Thursday. It is stated, upon the authority of the Ministerial paper, that the Shop Assistants' Act affords reason to the departmental officials to be in a very perplexed frame of mind, as to the term "Shop Assistants." The Stipendiary Magistrates sorely puzzled them. It is an extraordinary official "quandary" into which they are thrown, and as the present administration are such sticklers for strict accuracy, 1 copy the account of their puzzle-headedness from the ] Government organ, as follows —" Two Stipendiary Magistrates, of Wellington and j Gisborne, have decided that a shopkeeper's i wife does not come within the designation 'shop assistant.' Two other Stipendiary Magistrates haveruled, with equal confidence and magisterial acumen, that she does. Mr. | Hutchison's judgment is the latest, so that he may be presumed to have carefully scanned the prior decisions of Messrs. Martin, Booth, andCarew before endorsing the conclusion arrived at by the Dunedin magistrate- Six cases were brought before Mr. Hutchison last week. The three; informations against T. J. Wright turned, upon the point whether the wife of the shopkeeper can be termed a shop assistant. Mr. Hutchison decided in the affirmative. In the case of Ralston (two informations) it appeared that Ralston has taken his wife into partnership under an alleged deed, and the magistrate held that no partnership could exist between husband and wife. The case against Day was on an act which the united shopkeepers of Greytown arranged that he should commib for the purpose of giving them the opportunity of carrying the matter to bhe Supreme Court to obtain a decision upon the following questions :— Whether the Gazette notice is conclusive proof of the day appointed for, Greytown. 2. Whether the Council's resolution was properly made. 3. Whether the seven daya' notice required by tho Act was properly given." -