NOT ILLEGAL.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16149, 1 March 1918, Page 5

NOT ILLEGAL.

* SUNDAY TRADING IN MARBLE BARS. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE. An important judgment declaring, in , effect, that Sunday trading in marblo . bars and similar establishments is not i illegal, was delivered in tho Supremo Court at Wellington on Wednesday by | . his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir ( Robert Stout). The case was an ap- | peal brought by the respective mana- ! gei's of tiireo city establishments coni uoilod by tho .Marble Bar, Ltd., < iwiunst i-neir conviction by Jili- to. -UI jieUuithy, s.iVi., on a charge of keep--1 uig tiioir suops open on a ouuday. in liis jins Honour said: "These tiireo appo'ais aie appeals on a point of law, and tne question aii6oa on section 17 of the l'olioe Oliences Act, < wnich deals with. Sunday trading, and provides that every person is liuole to a line who,'on Sunday, in or in view of any puonc place, koops open any shop, etc:, for me purpose of trading, dealing, transacting business, or exposing goods for sale. Tho proviso to tho section says: —'Nothing herein shall apply to works of necessity,' etc. ihe Magistrate lias found that tho ■ < various appellants kept their shops ; open, but- he has aiso found fliat it was a necessity to certain people who were patrons of the shop to obtain refreshments on fcjunday. "It ' appears from the. statement nvade at tne hearing that similar shops are kept open at i»yall Bay, Day's Bay, and other parts on tho eastern sido of the harbour on Sunday for the supply of food to people who are travelling on the Sunday. The Magistrate has found that tnero were several persons in the appellants' shops being served with light refreshments, such as soft drinks, ice-creams, tea, ■ coffee, cocoa, milk drinks, bread and butter, meat sandwiches, cakes, pastry, and such like on the Sunday. lie aiso finds as follows:—'A few patrons come regularly for light meals on all Sundays. Some of these live in apartments, or what is termed "bach" in houses rented or owned by themselves respectively. Others visit Wellington on Sunday for the day, returning home in the ovening. Those make no provision for supplying themselves with meals. To all theso the supply of lighi refreshments is a necessity.' Ho also found, howover, that the great majority of the patrons are casual customers who reside in Wellington, and • who have made provision for supplying meals or refreshments in their own ; homes, and that for such patrons the i supply of light refreshments, outside their own homes, is not a necessity. "Having, howover, found that the supply of meals is a necessity to cer- : tain people who visit the shop, it cannot be said that keeping tho shop open —and that is tho charge in the Act— is not a work of necessity. Where are they to get food? Possibly they | might visit hotels, but it is stated that ( tno charges in hotels are heavier, and | ! many people object to visit hotels. This is not a charge of selling gooas to at | customer, nor does the Act assume that j the shopkeeper is bound to differentiate between people who visit his shop, | nameiy, ouiy to supply a certain cxass i and not aiiuLuer class. The offence is or keeping open a snop. ir, tueroiore, n is a nov-essity lor his snop to tie open no cannot be convicted. "It may be that tne law is inefficient. Jt is to be ooserved, however, 1 tnat if • people could get food in their i own nouses, and wore lorctd to do so, | and not to jjet it at restaurants, it ! mignt be tnat inoro work would bo | , uone and more people employed on the , . &uiiuay than ir tue reisiaurants were j kept open, because it would mean that people, servants and otnors, would be I Kept in houses providing meals for j those people who go to tne | If, tnerefore, the restaurants wore closed, there would be more Sunday labour than if they were kept open, and it appears to mo that the wnole purpose or section 17 of tho Act was to lessen Sunday labour. Tho lawmight have bean so drafted as only to have allowed shops to be open at certain hours of tho day—at meal times — but that is not provided for in the | Statute. In my opinion, therefore, the : Magistrate having found that the 6hops j were open of necessity—for he so finds —for some people to be supplied with I food, and as the offence charged is i simply that of keeping open the shops I and not selling goods, the appellants ought not to have been convicted. In my opinion, therefore, the conviction is wrong, and the appeals must be allowed." No costs were allowed. At the hearing of the appeal Mr A. W. Blair appeared for'the appellants and Mr P. S. K. Macassey represented the Crown. The late Earl Grey (at one time Go-vernor-General of Canada) was asKed what man of all he had Over known had most impressed him. He replied instantly, "Cecil Rhodes, becauso of the bigness of his mind and the tenderness ?£ ! llS n^ e^ rt '" He Proceeded to sav : that Rhodes was a man 0 f the mcrt •' tender and sentimental nature, that r,is • uncouthuc-ss. was worn by him as a pro- ? tcction against thoso who were always ready to prev upon him, that in reaiitv, 1 under a rough exterior, and behind an uningratiatihg manner, he hid the heart of a child.