SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2762, 20 February 1907, Page 34

SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

CHRISTCHUiICH, February 15. Mr Justice Chapman delivered this morning his reserved judgment in the appeal rase of Peter Keddie v. The South Canterbury Dairying Company (Limited). The appellant is inspector of factories at Timaru and the appeal was from the decision of Mr C. T. Wray, S.M., dismissing an information against the respondent company fur failing io close its office ait 1 p.m. in terms of " The Shops and Offices Act, 1904." His Honor said that the factory and office were in the same enclosure, and it would be impossible to carry on the business of th© factory luorat.ively if the office staff wa# not present when the factory was working. The company had an export trade, and! trlegrams arriving on Fhursday and Saturday afternoons required :mmediate attention. Section 23 of the act of 1904 provided! that every office should be so closed, but a> proviso exempted certain offices, and in, section 4 an interpretation of the word office excluded "any building in which the clerical work of a factory or shop is carried: on if situate within the factory or shop." "Factory" was not definod in that act, -but taking the definition in " The Factories Act, 1901," it seemed to him that that definition was intended to cover the very siiuation disclosed in this case, and to bring" within the factory all the premises withkb the cartilage or precincts so long as they ure not CTcdudtd from being used jn connection with the work of the factory. In. thia case the premises used for office work were within the factory in the eenee intended in both statutes. He thought, therefore, that the magistrate was right. The appeal wa» dismissed, with £5 5s costs.