THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1732, 10 May 1905, Page 50

THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

TELEGRAM FROM THE PREMIER.

AUCKLAND, May 7

The following telegram was sent by tho Premier to Mr Baume, M.H.R.. in reply to a suggestion that clause 3 of the Shops aud Offices Act should be suspended until the meeting of Parliament: —“The Courts have now determined the law, and 1 have no power to suspend it. The leader of the Opposition lias denounced the Government, and said in liis speeches, ‘lt was suspended by the Government in a most unconstitutional manner.’ There is no breach of faith, so far as lam concerned. I stated definitely that no action would be taken until the Courts had interpreted th© law, and I have kept my word, and am satisfied that to do that which the shopkeepers would ask would lead to th© Government being impeached as soon as Parliament met. What is wanted is reasonable compliance, and I have no reason to believe that the inspectors will drastically or arbitrarily enforce its provisions. They are statutory officers, and under section 42 of th© and Offices Act the following is enacted:—lt shall be the duty of every inspector to see the provisions of this act properly carried out., and to prosecute all parties «milty of any breach thereof.’ They have their duty to perform, to see that tne provisions of the act are properly carried out, and I cannot direct or instruct them any more than I can direct and instruct a policeman.”

CHRISTCHURCH, May 6

Fishmongers in Christchurch have been notified by the officer in ehargo of the local Labour Bureau that if they continue to sell game, poultry or rabbits they will be required to close their shops on the weekly half-holiday, or proceedings will be taken to enforce compliance with the Shops and Offices Act. It its probable that a test case will result.

The following is a copy of the notice sent to the proprietors of fishshops in Christchurch by Mr J. Shanaghan, Inspector of Factories:—“Your attention is called to section 15 of the Shops and Offices Act, and to the fact that r a fishmonger is a person whose business is to sell fish and shellfish.’ Therefore, if you continue to sell game, poiiltry or rabbits after receipt of this notice, you will be required to close your shop on the weekly half-holiday, or proceedings will bo taken to enforce compliance with the act.” It was reported that Mr H. A. Boardman had lodged an appeal against the inspector’s decision, and that the case would probably be a test one. When seen by a “Lyttelton Times” reporter, Mr Shanaghan said that the appeal would not be against any decision of his, but against the act. A fishmonger had been, defined by the act. A rabbit was not a fish nor a shell-fish, and hares and game were not fish nor shell-fish. Therefore, persons selling these things in conjunction with fish could not be classed as fishmongers according to the terms of the act. He recalled a recent test case concerning a fruiterer's business. The act defined a fruiterer as a person whose business was to sell fresh fruit and vegetables, and it had been sought to show that pot-plants, flowers, wreaths, wirework, Maori kits, and gardening gloves could be covered by the definition, but Mr 11. W. Bishop bad decided these goods were not compassed by the words of the act.