A HALF-HOLIDAY CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2537, 25 June 1909, Page 4

A HALF-HOLIDAY CASE

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. IPur Pithss .Association. j NELSON, June 24. An important judgment was given in the Supreme Court to-day by His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper, in the case of tho Inspector of Factories v. Bethwaite, an appeal from the decision of tho Magistrate in a half-holiday prosecution. The respondent is an ironmonger, and the half-holiday for that trade was fixed for Saturday by a requisition of two firing claiming to constitute a majority. The* respondent kept his shop open on Saturday, and when prosoeuted eet uj> tho defence that the requisition was not signed by. a majority of the trade, as there were other shopkeepers engaged in the sale of ironmongery as part of their business, and they were therefore ironmongers. The Magistrate upheld this contention, and dismissed the information. In the course of his judgment, His Honor said the appeal was made on two grounds: (1) That tho direction that the shops should close was conclusive, and (2) that the Magistrate was-wrong in holding that the requisition had not been eigned by a majority of the ironmongers and hardware dealers. With regard to tho first objection, His Honor held that the direction was not conclusive, and that its validity oould bo inquired into. On the second and main point, ho he'd that in construing Section 25 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1908, which allows the majority of the occupiers of all shops in a district or those carrying on a particular trade, to regulate at what hours their shops must °be closed, that interpretation must bo adopted which involved the less absurdity. In Nelson there were three shops whose main business was hardware and ironmongery, and several storekeepers a substantial part of whose business was also in these lines. If the traders who carry on these particular businesses cannot regulate their hours of closing without the consent of a majority of the general storekeepers they are prevented from exercising thepower granted by Section 25 of the Act. He thought at first that the certificate went beyond the requisition of the shopkeepers in adding the words “combined and separately,” and that the direction to close was therefore bad, but on consideration he came to the conclusion that these words applied to those carrying on ironmongery or hardware combined or separately, and not to those carrying on these businesses in conjunction with any other. On these grounds the appeal was allowed, and the case remitted to the-Magis-trate with a direction that the defence set up was no answer to the information, but as the question was of some importance and a new point of law was involved, no costs were allowed.