CHINESE GROCERS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1798, 22 August 1906, Page 66

CHINESE GROCERS.

HOURS OF CLOSING. THE MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. IN FORMATION S SUSTAIN ED. At tlxe Magistrate’s Court on August 13 Dr A. McArthur, S.M., gave reserved judgment in the cases wherein the Inspector of Factories last week proceeded against four Chinese fruiterers and grocers, Ah Lun, Hop Wan, Jing Yin. and Wong Too, carrying on business aft Pc;tone. The defendants were charged that, being the occupieis of shops within tlio meaning of section ill of the Shops and Offices Act, 1904, and section 5 of the Shops and Offices Aot Amendment Act, 1905, they unlawfully failed to close their shops in “accordance with a requisition, to the Minister of Labour, under section 21, as directed by notice in pursuance of such requisition appearing in the "Gazette.” Two questions arose in the cases. One was, can a non-naturalised Chinaman, who is a shopkeeper, be convicted under section 21 of the act of 1904? The second was, what constitutes a grocer?

Taking the first question, his Worship said that Ah Lun and Hop Wall were not naturalised, whilst Jing Ain and’ Wong Too were. Section 2 of the act of 1904 provided that “in this act, unless inconsistent with the context, • occupied means the person occupying. any buildings enclosure, or place used or intended to be used as a shop or office.” It was clear that the four defendants came within the scope of this definition. Section 32 provided that, “In every case where, by this aot, (a) any rule is required to be observed in a shop or office, or (b) any requisition of any inspector is served on the occupier of shop or office, or (o) any requirement, obligation, or provision is imposed or enacted with respect to a shop or office, the conduct of its business,, the treatment of the persons employed therein, or otherwise, it shall be the duty of the occupier to cause such rule, requisition, requirement, obligation, or provision to he faithfully observed or complied with.” Here again, his Worship said, he considered that the term “occupier” was used in the sense given to it in section 2, and that the four defendants came under the provisions of this section.

Section 21 of the aot was next quoted; by- his Wonship, together with subsection 5 ) providing, “That for the purpose of this section the interpretation of ‘occupier' in section 2 is so far modified as to include only British subjects,. whether, by naturalisation or otherwise.” The whole issue in the first question to be decided in thesp cases lay, he said, in the meaning to be given to the words, “for the purpose of this section,” in sub-section 5. Were occupiers who were not British subjects to bo excluded from the operation of section 21 altogether, or were they to be excluded only in the preparation of the requisition, but otherwise to come under the provisions of the section? It was the duty of the Court to give a. fail- interpretation to the words of a section, while not losing sight of the true purpose of the act. The Court ought not, in his opinion, to strain the meaning of the words simply because some unlookedfor result might follow from a candid interpretation. If such were the case, it - , was the duty of the Legislature, and not of the Court, to remedy matters. The intention of the Legislature must be gathered from its language, and when that language ■was clear and unequivocal, the Court must be bound by- it. If the language were equivocal or ambiguous, the Court must assign that meaning which, when taken with the context, would best advance the purpose of the act. Section 32 did not assist him, inasmuch as ho considered the word “occupier” was there used in the meaning given to it in section 2. Sub-section 5 of section 21 clearly limited the meaning of “occupier” as defined in section 2, to “occupiers being British subjects.” He thought the true intention of the Legislature would bo got at without any straining of language by reading into the section the words in parenthesis, as follows: —“1. On the requisition in writing of a majority of the occupiers (being British subjects) of all tlie shops in the district of any local authority desiring that all the shops therein shall be closed in the evening of every working day at an hour specified in the requisition, the Minister shall, by notice in the Gazette,’ direct that, from and alter a day therein mentioned, all shops in the district shall be closed in accordance with the requisition • • • provided that no requisition shall be acted upon by the Minister unless the local authority has certified that the signatures to the requisition represent a majority of the occupiers (being British subjects) of all the shops within the district.”

In his opinion, therefore, continued the Magistrate, non-naturalised persons could take no part in the requisition, but, notwithstanding this, they vyei'e : ; bound by the provisions of the section. Tins might be “taxation

without representation,” but the remedy was in the hands of the nonnaturalised persons themselves. They might become naturalised. His Worship’s answer to the first question arising in the cases was, that non-natural-ised Chinamen were bound by the prol isions of section 21 of the act, as well as British subjects, whether by naturalisation or otherwise. As to the second question raised—• what constitutes a grocer?—defendants alleged that they were fruiterers who kept a small stock of groceries. From the evidence, he was satisfied that they kept a large stock of groceries, a stock larger in point of value than that of fruit. It would, in his opinion, be wrong to say that they were fruiterers with a side-line or two of groceries. The business of defendants was as much a grocory business as it was a fruiterers’, if not more so. The informations must bo sustained. His Worship convicted defendants, and fined them each the nominal penalty (the questions being new) of 20s and costs (£1 18s 6d).