CHARGE AGAINST AN IRONMONGER.

Colonist, Volume LI, Issue 12506, 6 April 1909, Page 2

CHARGE AGAINST AN IRONMONGER.

HALF HOLIDAY CASE. A REQUISITION NULLIFIED. AN INTERESTING. CASE. A case ; of considerable^interest to shopkeepers was heard at the Magistrate's Court' yesterday morning before Mr Eyre-Kenny, S.M., when John Raymond Bethwaite, ironmonger, was charged on the information of Samuel Tyson, Inspector of Factories, with having failed to close his shop at 5.30 p.m. on Saturday,, March 6th., in terms of the requisition fixing the closing hours of ironmongers' shops in Nelson. . Mr Tyson represented the Lahour Department and Mr: J. P. Hayes,, with him Mr P. B. Atkinson (on behalf of the-Nelson Retailers' Association) appeared'for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. " Mr Tyson said the facts of the case were simple. He put; in the Gazette notice,^ dated February 18th, whereri it was announced that as a majority of ironmongers had requisitioned for the weekly half holiday to be observed on Saturday, the shops must be closed on that day in accordance" with the 'terms of the requisition. On March 6th, he visited defendant's shop after the. closing hour, and found it open, and business being done. Mr Hayes contended that it was; possible to go behind the Gazette notice of the requisition, and after argument the Magistrate* ruled that' Mr Hayes had. established his point. The Inspector of Factories then fave evidence. . He statecj that on aturday, March 6th, about 7 p.m., he visited the shop in Hardy street, occupied by -defendant, who carries on business as an ironmonger, -and found it open to the public and business going on. . In cross examination by Mr Hayes informant said he could not prove the signatures to the requisition, or that the signatories purporting to sign had authority to sign. In regard to Buxton and Co y Ltd.,; and the Willuns and Field Hardware Co., Ltd., both companies had wholesale as well as retail businesses. He would not say that defendant was a wholesale merchant." There was no signature to the requisition of any person carrying oa a purely retail ironmongery biisiriess. •'- He agreed with the definition 'of "ironmonger" and "hardware" dealers as cited from the. "Century Dictionary.'.' -"- The \ 'Century Dictionary" definition of "ironmonger" was "a dealer in ironware or hardware. Ironware means locks,- keys, objects made of iron, "iron utensils, saws- nails^- pots, kettles, pans, scales, iron implements, tools made of iron, .ornamental ironwork." -.:-.,- Mr Hayes produced the annual report of tfie Department of. Labour for 1908.' ;■■•-.■ Witness contiiiuing, said he was responsible for the part relating to Nel-son-district. . , ■ ■ ■- ' „ ; . In the report it was-: stated that there were four ironmongery establishments/ three employing assistants, and one without. : ".':"" "Witness, said this referred to the jNclsbn district, which included Motueka, Takaka, and Collingwood. There < was an ironmonger hi Motueka, but iKine in Takaka. He admitted that there were stores in-Takak&ithat sold ■; the articles- mentioned in the "Century Dictionary definition , but there was : no one there trading as ironmongers. Ho would not call a storekeeper :■ an i ii onmonger unless ironmbngery was : his chief business. „ ";" 1 My Hayes : ■Is ironmongery Buxton' ;i and Co.' s chief business? ; Witness: In one particular shop : ironmongery is Buxton and Co's prin- i cipal btisiness. L ' Continuing witness said a general < storekeeper was not an ironmonger. .< Ironmongery must be" a man' s leadin g i line and not merely a substantial part of the business,/ ■'-."■ ■;•■ ; ' .'"->;„ ]

Mr Hayes again read over the definition of an ironmonger, and asked if Franzen and Co did not sell practically all the articles enumerated. Witness said that the firm mentioned were ship chandlers. He admitted however, that they sold ironmongery and hardware as defined. Mr Hayes : Then if Franzen and Co are ironmongers a majority did not sign the requisition. In reply to a further question by Mr Hayes witness said lie did not consider Snodgrass . and Sons wore ironmongers, although they sold domestic ironmongery and hardware. Their business was chiefly crockery and enamelware. Mr Hayes pointed out that if other firnis were allowed to sell the same articles as defendant after 5.30 p.m. they would have an unfair advantage over him. Mr Hayes, contended that it was necessary to prove that the persons who purported to sign the requisition had 'in tact done so, which the prosecutor had failed to do, and that assuming that the -requisition had been properly signed it had Mot been proved that the signatories were a major- i ity.of the ironmongers in the city, and also that the word "ironmonger" hy analogy with a case decided by Dr Me Arthur in Wellington could b a held to mean a person whose "business included a substantial traxle in ironmongery, ■ The Magistrate said the signatures had not been proved, and there, was no proof that a majority of- ironmongers had signed the requisition. If a substantial portion of Franzen' s and Snodgrass' was hardware, they shouUTalso have signed the requisition. The case would be dismissed.