Breach of the Shops Act.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7657, 16 June 1896, Page 3

Breach of the Shops Act.

' At the Police Court this morning, before Mr Booth, S.M., Riohard Charles Humphreys was charged with having on tho Afternoon , f of Thursday, the 11th June, failed to close . his shop ia accordance with the provisions ', of the Shops and Shop Assistants Act 1894 end the amendments thereof. - Sergeant • Major Moore conducted the . prosecution, and Mr Day appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. ■ - ■ Bergeant-Major Moore deposed that on ; the afternoon in question defendant had his Bhop opon'at 3.30 o'clock. In addition to being a fruiterer defendant had cordials exposed for sale.- 'On the previous Thursday I the shop was open, and he (the Sergeant- - Major) had informed the daughter, who was in charge, that it was against the law for the shop to be open. Defendant had had a conversation with him on the subject, and i had said that fruiterers kept open in Auckland. • ; *Tb!Mr Day : Did not know that defendant ■ kept an eating house. Had been in other parts of the colony, and did not think he knew a frniteier's'shop that did not keep cordials. Did not think it was part of a fruiterer's ordinary business to sell these , drinkß, but believed it was ÜBual for them - -to do so. Did not know from personal . observation that fruiterers' shops selling these drinks were closed on the- half-holiday afternoon. Wbb of opinion that if defendant bad an eating house it would be allowable to expose cordials for sale. Constable Law gave evidence regarding defendant's stock. By Mr Day : Defendant sold oysters on the premises. R. D. B. Robinson, Town Clerk, produced . the Council minutejbook containing resolution appointing Thursday as the day on which the half-holiday was to be observed in Gisfeorne. The necessary legal forms in connection with the.matter had been observed. Mr Day, in opening the case for the defendant, said that the question was, what was a fruiterer's business. If ho could prove that the keeping and aelliog of cordials was part of a fruiterer's ordinary business, then it was not a breach of the Act for hiß client to keep open because he sold these things, '. especially when he combined the businesses of eating-house and fruiterer. Defendant Baid he kept a fruiterer's shop and oyster saloon. He had closed his shop on Thursday afternoon at the beginning. The reason why he had changed his course of aotion was that he saw the fruiterers in other parts of the colony, in Auckland particularly, keeping open on the halfholiday. These shops in Auckland all exposed cordials for Bale. '; His. Worship, in giving judgment, said that the Act was very clear on the subject. . Certain businesses .were allowed to keep open on the half-holiday, but these shops mast be kept open for the exclusive sale of one or more of the goods permitted to be Bold on the half -holiday. Amongst the goods so allowed to be sold cordials was not included, and consequently keeping a shop open whioh exposed cordials for sale " was a breach of the Act. He was not giving Judgment against defendant because he kept an eating house and fruiterer's business combined, but because he expoeed crated waters for sale, which, he took it, was contrary to ; the section of the Aot. Mr Day held that cordials and jerated waters formed part of the stock-in-trade of an eating house, and as defendant kept an oyster saloon where the public were supplied with oysters to be consumed on the premises ■ it was necessary to have these drinks for sale for the convenience of those who patronised the oyster saloon. His Worship held that this was an erroneous contention and he could not entertain it. Sergeant-Major Moore said that as defendant had evidently been under a false impression ho would ask that a light fine be ' imposed. His. Worship said that that being the case be would impose a fine of 5s and costs 7s.