SHOP AND OFFICES ACT.

West Coast Times, 26 June 1912, Page 4

SHOP AND OFFICES ACT.

POSITION OF BOARDING HOUSES

IMPORTANT DECISION,

AUCKLAND, June 18.

An important case concerning the liability of private hotel and boarding housekeepers to provide meals for casual callers was heard at the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Edwads, to-day, when the Labour Department appealed against the decision of Mr. F. V. Fraser, S.M., given in the action of the Inspector of FacFaetories v. Mrs Scberf, proprietoressof/ “ Glenalvon.” The original information was laid under the Shops and Offices Acts, 1908 and the Amendment Act, 1910, Mrs Scherf being charged that, being the proprietress of a restaurant, to wit “Glenalvon,” she did fail to keep a wages and time hook, as provided by the Amendment Act, 1910. The facts were agreed on, and one point which wont tc: Urn root cf the whole case that -meals were not supplied to any persons but ledgers and lodgers’ guests. The case was brought as a test case, in order to ascertain whether an establishment such as “ Glenalvon ” came within the scope of the above-mentioned Acts. Mr. Fraser decided that on the facts “Glenalvon” did not .came within such definition, and dismissed the information.

At this morning’s proceedings, -Mr. Schvyn Mays appeared for the Crown, and Mr. 11. p, Richmond for respondent.

Mr. Mays in opening the case slated that tlie object of the appeal was to obtain a Supremo Court Judgment on the point involved, for the guidance of the Department in administering the Act. The chief argument ho would rely upon was that if “Glenalvon” and similar institutions were not within the scope of the Amendment Act, then a very largo number uf employees in these institutions throughout the Dominion would bo shut out from all its benefits, while a similar number of employees doing precisely the same work in licensed hotels and restaurants would get the protection r.f belter conditions provided for by the law. in other words, it ( ink! nut have been the intention of (lie law that a housemaid, say, at the Grand Hotel, should have her hours of work limited and duly recorded in a timebook, whilst a housemaid at “ Glenalvon,” doing similar work, should be outside the Act.

His Honour, without calling upon Mi. Richardson for respondent, said that whatever the pnliry of (he Act might he, ho was bound by the plain mi aning of the words in sub-fk ction 2, and to his mind the words “ general public” meant “ general public” and ho knew that if a person df the si reel not a lodger, came to “Glenalvon,” and asked to be supplied with a meal, that person would not be supplied, the establishment did not come within the meaning of the word “restaurant” as deiined by the Act. His Honour referred to the fact that at higher-class boarding bouses only the better class of persons were received—that was, people w ho could afford to pay more. “Imagine a man off the wharf going into ‘ Glenalvon,’ nr any such boardinghouse,” remarked His Honon- facetiously, “and saying, ‘Well, missus, 1 want dinner.’ IF that state of things prevailed, the Hon. Mr. Rryco, or some High Duke, for instance, might bo sitting 'alongside the man from the wharf, or the Chief Justice might have a wharf labourer ou one side of him and a coal lumper on the other.” Continuing, his Honour said that

.Mr Mays had taken arcument for appellant as far as it could ho 'taken, but the position could not ho altered, and the appeal would therefore lie dismissed.