FAIRLIE HALF-HOLIDAY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18538, 8 April 1930, Page 5

FAIRLIE HALF-HOLI-DAY.

OPPONENTS OF SATURDAY. MUST PAY OWN LAW COSTS. ’ At yesterday’s meeting of the Mackenzie County Council, a letter was received from the Minister of Labour (Hon. W. A. Veitch), stating that as the statutory requirements regarding the fixing of the half-holiday for v Fairlie by the local authority had not been fully complied with by the Council, he was required to fix the statutory closing day under Section 18 of the Shops and Offices Act. In view of the difference of opinion that existed regarding the day to be observed, and of the fact that the Council decided on Saturday only on the casting vote of the chairman, he had decided to adhere to the usual practice and appoint Thursday, tne existing day, as the half-holiday. Shopkeepers who desired to observe Saturday as the closing day could do so on giving notice in writing to the Inspector of Factories. An account, addressed to Mr Murray, Braemar, for £lO/10/-, from Messrs Raymond, Raymond and Campbell, solicitors, was submitted to the Council by Mr Murray. The fee j was for work in connection with the half-holiday protest. The chairman said that the Finance Committee had not discussed tne matter, but in his opinion Mr Murray, as a Councillor, had no authority on behalf of the Council to consult any solicitor. It meant that if the Council j passed the account any Councillor who desired to consult a solicitor privately would be able to do so at the County’s expense. Mr Campbell: “Surely Mr Murray is not serious.” Continuing, the chairman said he would not take it upon himself to consult a solicitor without the authority of the Council. Mr Smith said that the Council should not be held liable for the account, although the ratepayers who favoured Thursday were greatly indebted to Mr Murray for what he had I done. In his opinion, it was the duty ' of the ratepayers who favoured Thursday to pay tne account. Mr Campbell: “I move that the account be not entertained.” In seconding the motion, Mr J. McCort said that those who incurred the liability should pay for it. If the Council paid the fee it would establish a dangerous precedent. The motion was carried.