THE HALF-HOLIDAY.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2437, 16 February 1895, Page 4

THE HALF-HOLIDAY.

BREACHES OP THE ACT. A NUMBER OF SHOPKEEPERS PINED. 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., yesterday morning. Mr Gully appeared for the Department of Labour in all the cases. The first case taken was that against J, F. Kuoh, pork butcher, Cuba street, for whom Mr Skerrett appeareq., The Inspector of Factories deposed that' defendant’s shop was open on tho afternoon in question, and that Mrs K'ucli 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 ho w ould give his decision on Friday next.. Mr Gully said he would not proceed in the case in which Harry Lange was similarly summoned. His Worship allowed Lange ill Is costs. Mr Gully informed the Bench that the facts in the case of John McLean, ironmonger, Willis street, wore 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 ho would give his decision together with that in the other case. Tho following Chinamen were then charged jvith breaches of tho 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 Leo, Wong Heong, Wong Hung, Hee Chong and Flong On. The defendants were represented by Messrs Skerrett and Wilford. The evidence of tho Inspector of Factories was to the effect that the defendants had their shop doors open, although in all cases but one, where the shop had no shutters, the shutters were closed. He 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, aud also for the convenience of tho 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 oh a similar charge they would be fined .£5 each.