The Shops Act

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5270, 29 May 1895, Page 3

The Shops Act

... — • , AN INTERESTING POINT. [Peb Pbess i Association.! AUCKLAND. Mat 29. m Mr Northcroft, S.M., held that the section of the Shops Act requiring the local authority to fix a day in January next,, made the Aot inoperative till January, 1896, ahd dismissed the case against Mr Badley, who was charged with neglecting to close on the Saturday. Mr Northcroft said he thought that the main question was when Section 9 of the Statute rendering it incumbent that a particular day shall be fixed for the halfholiday oame into operation. He was prepared to deal with the case on that point. The question then waa when did the statute first speak. The Aot oame into operation on Jan. 1, 1895, and Mr Cooper had argued that Seotion 9, which provided that a day should be fixed in January next, did not come into force tHI January, 1896. The case Wood v. Riley had been quoted, in which Justice Bovill said, " the sections of a statute are all framed as if it would come into operation at once, and the last thing Bottled was when it shall come into operation; but they are all to be considered as speaking from the date so fixed, and are alf governed by the last section." In Richards v. M'Bride Justice Lopez also Baid that a statute clearly spoke from the date upon whioh it came into operation. In the Shopß and Shop # Assistants Act it was provided that it should not come into operation until Jan. 1, 1895. That was the date from which it spoke. That being so, the month of January next, in Seotion 9, seemed to have a clear reference to the month of January, 1896, and not to January, 1895. In constructing an Act/the Court mußt be always careful not to put such a construction upon itß provisions as to make the Act ridiculous. He did not think that the construction he put on this Act would do so. There was nothing inconsistent in the reading whioh he put on Section 9, for if the law was considered as it Btood at the time of the passing of this Act, it would be found provided that shopkeepers were to give their assistants one half-holiday during each week, but no provision was made for the closing of shops. Section 3 of the new Act carries legislation with regard to shops one step further, because it provides that shops must be closed one half-holiday during each week. The Act of 1894 for the first time compelled the closing of shop.. It. was reasonable that before a day Bhould be compulsorily fixed there should be time, which he thought the legislature had fixed at twelve months, in order to ascertain what the wishes of the people were. He, therefore, held that Section 9 of the statute was not yet in operation, and that consequently no day had been appointed for the closing of shops. The information must, therefore, be dismissed. Mr Tole Baid hiß Worship had not referred to a case in East's report which he had quoted, and also to the Interpretation Aot. Mr Northcroft replied that if his decision was wrong, Mr Tole had the right of appeal. If an appeal were lodged, all the points were open. To Mr Cooper, he might say that Mr Cooper's authorities were not supported that he might go behind a Gazette notice. Mr Tole said the second information against the defendant for employing an assistant would be withdrawn. ■.