A SHOW GROUND SALESMAN.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13277, 17 January 1911, Page 7

A SHOW GROUND SALESMAN.

FINED £l AND COSTS. Shopkeeper or Auctioneer? Mr W. Kerr, S.M., gave the following judgment torday in the case, Inspector o. Factories v Hart:— Defendant is charged that, heiug the occupier of a shop-within the meaning of the Shop and Offices Act,, 1908, lie failed to close his shop in AVaiiganui at 1 p.m. on Thursday, 17th November last, .which ijsas the statutory closing day for the combined district of Wanganui. It was admitted by defendant that the racecourse, where the offence was alleged to have been committed, is within the borough, of Wanganui, and that the date mentioned in the information was the statutory half-holiday. The evidence showed that defendant had a stand erected on . the Show grounds In own as the racecourse, on which a large quantity of fancy goods whs displayed for sale, and about 2.30 p.m. he was seen selling retail to different persons, a number of razors, sleeve links, and studs; that lie did not invito competition, and I have no doubt that defendant was selling goods retail because, in answer to the inspector’s statement that be .(defendant) was committing an offence',' be (defendant) said he did not know such was the case, and that if he could not sell retail he would sell by auction as he held an auctioneer’s license, ond the evidence of the inspector is uncontradieled. It was put up as a defence that as defendant held an auctioneer’s license that authorised ■ him to sell as he S leased, even’on the statutory half-holi-ay and that hy rbason of his. holding an auctioneer’s license he did not come within the class ofpersona aiined at by section 26 of the Shop and Offices Act. “Shop” is defined as including “any building or place in which goods are kept, or exposed, or offered for sale,” and section 26. with respect to hawkers and “other persons who carry on business by selling or offering goods for sale by retail,otherwise than in a shop,” every such person shall be deemed to be the “occupier of a shop,” and to keep a shop open whenever and wherever for the time being he is selling oroffering goods fox* sale by retaiL.lt was contended -by defendant tbat other persons” in this , section had to be con- , strued “ejusdem generis,” with the preceding word “hawkers.” I am unable so to construe the expression which I think has been introduced into the section for the express purpose of reaching persons whose business would not be covered by the designation.of hawker.. . ■ In my’ opinion the' facts, looked -at in , the Tight' of-the Shop .and Offices Act, constitute. the defendant' a’" shop-keeper,: and* on’ the day: in question- he' was .-acting in that'character, and- not; in',his capacity) as an>hct(nneer; He .will therefore be convict--ed and fined ,£2, .and'costs -75.,