SALE OF TOBACCO.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17409, 23 May 1928, Page 6

SALE OF TOBACCO.

NEW CLOSING LAW. POSITION OF RESTAURATEUR. EXEMPTION GRANTED, As the law stands, a restaurant proprietor who sells tobacco as a sideline is required to close his premises at, 8 p.m. daily. This position was declared to be anomalous by Mr H. J. McMullin, in supporting an application by Frederick George Sanders, restaurant keeper, Hamilton, to-day, for exemption from • the closing requirements of the Act. The application was opposed by the Hamilton Tobacconists' Association.' Mr McMullin said that the little business done by Sanders in tobacco did not make him a serious competitor with the tobacconists of the town when the tetter's premises were closed. Applicant gave evidence to 'the effect that apart from meals he conducted a booking agency for several car services. Between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. 10 cars stopped at his door, and his busiest time was from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.. He had received no complaints from tobacconists of unfair competition. Replying to Mr D. Seymour, who represented the tobacoonists, Sanders said he could be trusted not to sell tobacco after 8 o'clock, if he were permitted to open his premises after that hour. He admitted he had been convicted twice during the past four years for trading after hours. Both cases were, however, due to the fault of an employee. William Gann gave evidence relating to the hours observed by 'the tobacconists of the town. A limited number opened up till 8 o'clock; some observed- the Wednesday half-holiday, while others closed on Saturday. Mr Seymour said the legislation leafing with the matter was exceedingly involved, and as Mr Cutten's recent judgment went to show, the effects were very serious. It was, he pointed out, almost impossible, once an exemption was given, for 'the conditions on which it was given to bo faithfully observed. It was in the ordinary course of human nature thai a substantial leakage would take place. There was another course open to the applicants in these cases; that was, to give up the sale of tobacco, but they would not take it. The tobacconists were finding that all their bread and butter lines were being pirated from them, and that the hairdressers' business was in a very.invidious position. To grant the present application would doubtless lead to many other applications for exemption. The magistrate, Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., said that before the present regutaltions came into force applicant kept his premises open till 11 p.m. for the sale of meals. He then also sold tobacco. The new ' regulations prevented him doing 'that, but the Court ha'd power, where it saw fit, to grant exemption, if satisfied that tobacco would not be sold after 8 p.m. His Worship did not see that any conclusive evidence had been brought to show that an exemption, if granted in this case, would seriously affec-t the business of any other shop. The law required the applicant to observe the set hours in regard Jo the sale of tobacco. In addition to that, the Court might require a personal undertaking, which in this case would be binding upon the applicant, to see that the provisions of the law were carried out. As his position was not exactly unique, but was unusual, his restaurant being the centre of a busy motorists' trade, his Worship considered it "of importance that Sanders should be allowed tq keep open his shop for the convenience of the travelling public. The magistrate added that he did not see why the applicant should be penalised 'lo the extent of cutting out his tobacco business altogether. The application was granted, provided the applicant gave a personal undertaking, on his honour, that thera would be no infringement of the Isw, ,