"GO TO CHARITY."

Waipa Post, Volume 36, Issue 2145, 17 April 1928, Page 5

"GO TO CHARITY."

Sir, —I notice in your issue of 10th April a false statement re shop-keep-ing, I was never called upon in the Court to answer the charge—l had not the pleasure of doing so. Re the cigarettes, on the counter for sale, and covered up on the Wednesday, I never have had cigarettes on the counter. They are in a place that I put a board over to lock down and close on it. On the "statutory half holiday" thnre is nothing to be seen except the groceries, which are covered over with sliding doors made of gauze, and are dosed. Now, -sir, it is hard when a woman is not allowed to earn an honest living. Re the inspector, I can say that some time about April, 1927, he came into my shop, inquired far me, and I entqred. Mr Wilson then told me who he was, and gave me orders to close down. I asked why, and he said I.had tobacco and groceries. I showed him how I closed down the tobacco, and that I had not groceries in the shop at that time. There were.some in the window, but that was locked, too. I told him I had pies, afternoon tea, fruit, etc., which were perishable goods. He then said if I did not want to close down I was to cut but the tobacco and groceries. I said, "Well, I don't know what to do. There would not be a living in it." He then said, with a sheer, " Well, go to charity." I was terribly grieved, and resented the remark.' I am a woman trying hard.to support my husband, who was an invalid, and taking epilepsy four or five times a day,; keeping six out of the busineiss, and the children not too strong. Don't think, sir, that it did not cut me delep. I then asked him if he was a man to insult a woman in that manner, and asked if I could start him alt 10s a week. He said he did not ask for that. I told him he was man enough to give the insult, but not man enough to stand the consequence. Then I told him his billet was not very honourable, and he would look better sweeping the streets than coming into a s"hop insulting a respectable woman. I then said, " You dog, to say such a thing ! " and I broke down. I was ill for thnee days after. It is not easy for anyone to try to earn an honest living. It was on those grounds that I ordered that man off the premises. I have my family, and cannot allow a man that has no respect for me or mine to talk that way. It seems hard that a woman like I am has to close down and the charge against Nan Quan was .dismissed, and she is allowed to keep open, :and this in my own country ! What would charity do for any woman as long as her husband is alive? If she were a widow ; she would get a widow's pension and so much allowed for the children under 15 years.—l am, stc L. M. WEBBER. [Our recollection of the case is that Mrs Webber was invited by the Court to give evidence on oath in rebuttal, but her counsel elected not to put her in the box, realising that the charge was unanswerable. The law was quoted as saying a shopkeeper must observe the statutory half holiday if he (or she) stocks tobacco or groceries for sale. Mrs .Webber could not deny that she had tobacco and groceries on the premises for sale. If she believed she could evade the law by locking up those particular goods on the half holiday she must have been badly advised. In the case of Nan Quan the magistrate merely held that proof of sale of cigarettes was not definite enough to justify a conviction.—Ed.]