THE HALF-HOLIDAY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1199, 22 February 1895, Page 33

THE HALF-HOLIDAY.

The cases in which a large number of European and Chinese shopkeepers were summoned on charges of keeping their premises open on Wednesday, February 6, were heard before Mr" Martin, S.M., on Friday morning. Mr Gully appeared for the Department of Labour in all the cases. The first case taken was that against J. F. Kuch, pork butcher, Cuba street, for whom Mr Skerrett.appeared. The Inspector of Factories deposed that defendant's shop was open on tho afternoon in question, and that Mrs Kuch was serving therein. Mr Skerrett, for the defence, said it was an extraordinary thing that the department should insist that if a man's wife assisted him in his business she should be regarded as an assistant, and therefore entitled to a half-holiday. The defendant said his wife only assisted him in the shop on an emergency, and was not regularly employed there. His Worship said he n ould give his decision on Friday next.

Mr Gully said he would not proceed m the case in which Harry Lange was* similarly summoned. His Worship allowed Lange Is costs. Mr Gully informed the Bench that the facts in the case of John McLean, ironmonger, Willis street, were agreed upon, and the question they wished His Worship to decide was whether McLean, who employed no assistance and did not live on the premises was bound to close on Wednesday afternoons. His Worship said he would give his decision together with that in the other case. The following Chinamen were then charged with breaches of the Act on the same date: Wong Wah, Young Wah, Wong Tim, Ah Pat, Hong Lee, Wong Quong, Young Lee, Sue Ping, Kim Lee, Kong Wort Sam, Wong Sing, Joe Way, Wong Sow, Loong Key, Sun Chuen Lee, Qui Lee, Wong Heong, Wong Hung, Hea Chong and Plong On. The defendants were represented by Messrs Skerrett and Wilford. The evidence of the Inspector of Factories was to the effect that the defendants had their shop doors open, although inall cases but one, where the shop had no shutters, the shutters were closed. Ha also stated that the defendants were carrying on their trade during some portions of the afternoon and evening. The defence was that the shop doors had been left open for ventilation purposes, and also for the convenience of the owners, .as in some cases there was no back entrance to the premises. His Worship convicted all the defendants, remarking that it was unfair to other shopkeepers that they should keep open when everyone else had their premises shut. They would each have to pay a fine of 20s, with 7s costs in each case; and he warned them that if they again came before him on a similar charge they would be fined £5 each.