A VEXED QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3029, 3 April 1912, Page 28

A VEXED QUESTION.

BREACH OF SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. WELLINGTON, March 27. A decision of special interest to Chinese shopkeepers wae given by Mr Riddell, S.M., today, in a case Inspector of Awards v. Chung Wall. The defendant was charged that, being the occupier of a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, he failed to close at 1 o'clock. The shop is registered as one in which fruit and groceries are sold. It is divided into two compartments, in one of which the defendant sells only fruit and vegetables, and in the other fruit, vegetables, groceries, etc. On Wednesday afternoon the portion in which the groceries are sold is closed, the other part being kept open. Counsel for the defendant contended that the partitioning of the shop did not constitute failure to close at 1 o'clock, as the sale of fruit and vegetables came within the exception mentioned in clause 18 of the act. The Magistrate was of opinion that if the defendant had registered his premises as two shops he might have been within his rights; but having registered as only one shop, he, had failed to comply with the law on the closing point. Defendant was fined 20s and costs.