COAL LUMPERS AND DUKE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3551, 15 June 1912, Page 7

COAL LUMPERS AND DUKE.

MIGHT DINE SIDE BY SIDF "is A BOARDING HOUSE A RESTAURANT? [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, June 14. An important case concerning the liability of private hotel and boarding-house-keepers to provide meals for casual callers was heard at the Supreme Court before, Mr Justice Edwards to-day, when the Labor Department appealed against the decision of Mr F. V. Fraser, S.AI-, given in the action Inspector of Factories v. .Mrs Slierf, proprietress of “Glen AI von.”

The original information was under the Shops and Offices Act, 1908, and the Amendment Act, 1910, Airs Shcrf being charged that, being the proprietress of a restaurant, to wit “Glen Alvon,” she did fail to keep a wages and time book as provided by the Amendment Act, 1910- The facts were agreed on and one point which meant the root of the whole case was that meals, were not supplied to any persons 'but lodgers or lodgers’ guests. The case was brought as a test ease in order to ascertain whether establishments suclUas “Glen Alvon” came within the scope of the above-mention-ed Acts. Air Fraser decided that on the facts “Glen Alvon” did not come within such a definition and dismissed the information. At this morning’s* proceedings Air Selwyn. Atavs appeared for the Crown and Air H. P. Richmond for the respondent. Air Alavs, in opening the ease, stated that the object of the appeal was to obtain a Supreme Court judgment upon the point involved for the guid- ! ance of the Department in administering the Act. The chief argument he would rely upon was that- if “Glen Alvon” and similar institutions were not within the scope of the Amendment Act, then a very large number of employees in. these institutions throughout the "Dominion would be shut, out from all its benefits, while a similar number of employees doing precisely tlie same work in licensed hotels and restaurants would get the protection of the better conditions provided for by tlie law. In other words it could not have been the intention of the law that a housemaid, say at the Grand Hotel, should have her hours recorded in a time book, while a housemaid at “Glen Alvon” doing similar work should be outside the Act. His Honor, without, calling upon Air* Richmond for respondent, said that whatever the policy of the Act might be ne was bound by the plain meaning of the words in sub-section 2, and to his mind the words “general public” meant, “general public” and lie knew that if a person from off the street not a lodger came to “Glen Alvon” and asked to he supplied with a meal that person would not be supplied, and unless such persons were supplied the establishment, did not come within the meaning of the word “restaurant” as defined by the Act. His Honor referred to the fact that at higher-class boarding houses only the better class of persons were received —that was, people who could afford to pay more. ( “Imagine a man off the wharf going into ’Glen Alvon’ or any other such hoarding house,” remarked His Honor, facetiously, “and saying, 'Well, missus, I want dinner!’ That state of things prevailing Hon. Air Bryce or some high duke, for instance, night, be sitting alongside a man from :he wharf or the Chief Justice might lave a wharf laborer on one side and i coal lumper on the other.” Continuing, His Honor said that Mr A fays had taken the argument for ippellant- as far as it could he tateii, but the-position could not be altered and the appeal would therefore je dismissed.