THE SHOPS AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10427, 27 April 1897, Page 3

THE SHOPS AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT.

A TEST CASE. At the Police Court yesterday before Sit, H. W. Brabant, S.M., H. M. Smeeton, grocer, wa» charged with having employed a shop assistant for more than half an houi after the prescribed time of closing. There were feurteen similar charges against the defendant in respect of other assistants.

Mr. McAlistei' couducted the case foi the Inspector of Factories (Mr. H. Ferguson), who was also in Court.

Mr. Cotter appeared for the defence, and pleaded not guilty in order to heai His Worship's interpretation of section five of the Ameudment Ace. He said his client took stock on the date in question—a Saturday half-holiday—to comply with the requirements of the Lund and Income Tax Act. There was no provision for stock taking iu the Shops and Shop Assistants Act, aud Mr. Smeeton telegraphed to the Government for permission to keep his employees on Saturday afternoon for the purpose, as his employees would rather take stock on that day than come back at night. A reply was received—" Will awsria further particulars." Mr. Smeeton sent full particulars, and, thinking he would bs sure to receive s favourable answer, went on with the stock-taking. Subsequently the reply came that the Government could not give the le*ve as asked. Section 5 of the Amendment Act said no person should be employed in any shop about the "ordinary business" of such shop for more than half-aa-liour after the prescribed time of closing. Mr. Cotter questioned whether stocktaking coulil be considered part of the ordinary business of a shop, and asked His Worship to decide that point. It was more convenient to take stock on the Saturday, and the employees were quite agreeabla to come back. Mr. Brabant said he did not think the wish of the employees affected the matter. Mr. McAlister said the Act required that employees should have their half-holiday, and Mr. Smeeton was the only shopkeeper in Auckland who had applied for extra tim* in which to take stock, since the Act had been in force.

Mr. Brabant said in his opinion stocktaking would come within the meaning of section fire of the Amendment Act. And not only in his own opinion bat he wu assisted in coming to that conclusion by t'.i* wording of section twelve of the 1891 Act, in whioh the words " any work in connection with the shop" were used. In section fire of the Amendment Act, the words "any work in connection with the business" wer« nsed. It was clear that the words of section twelve were intended to include stocktaking, far later on there was a proviso allowing the persons which the section ileal, with to be employed, within certain liiniti, for the purpose of stock-taking Therefore, that section assisted him materially in interpreting section 5 of the 1896 Amendment Act. He had no hesitation iu coming to the con' elusion that defendant had committed a breach of the Act in employing those tuts. A fine of '203, with coats, «u imposed is the first cue, and for each of the, fourleei remaining cases defendant was ordered t« pay a fine oi Si. without coits.