HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 543, 25 June 1909, Page 6

HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION.

A NEW POINT IN LAW. (By Taleeraph.-Prcoe Association.) Nelson, June 24. An important judgment was givtn in tho Supreme Court to-day by bis Honour Mr. Justice Cooper in a case, Inspector of Factories v. Uothwaite—au appeal from tho decision of the Magistrate in a half-holiday prosecution. Respondent is an ironmonger, and tho half-holiday for that trade was iked for Saturday by tho requisition of two firms claiming to constitute the majority.: of the , trade. Respondent kept his chop open • on Saturday, and when prosecuted set up tho defence that tho requisition was not signed by the majority, of the,trade, as there were other shopkeepers engaged in the salo of ironmongery as part of their business, and they were thereforo ironmongers. Tho Magistrate upheld this contention and dismissed tho information. ■■■.'. .In tho - course, of delivering judgment on this point his Honour said tlint the- appeal was mado on two grounds:—(l) That ■ the direction that the shops should close was conclusive,. and (2) that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the requisition had not been signed by a majority of tho ironmongers and hardware dealers. /With regard to the first objection, his Honour held that the direction was not conclusive, and that its validity could be inquired into. On tho second and main point, ho hold that, in construing Section "25 of the Shops, arid Offices Act, 1908, which allows the majority of the occupiers of all shops in a district, or those carrying on particular trades, to regnlato at what hours their shops most be closed, that interpretation must be adopted which involved the least absurdity. In Nelson there were ;threo shops whoso 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 h<rare.J.of closing without the consent of a majority of tho general storekeepers, they are prevented from exorcising the power granted by Section 25 of the Act, Ho thought at firet that the certificate went beyond the requisition of tho shopkeepers in adding tho words "combined, and separately," and that the direction to close was, therefore, bad, but on consideration, he came to the conclusion that those words applied to those carrying on ironmongery or hardware combined' or- soparatelyi and not to those carrying on these businesses in conjunction with any other. On those grounds the appeal was allowed; and tho case remitted to the Magistrate with a direction that lie defence set up was no answer to the information, but; as tho question was of some importance and a now point , of law was involved, no costs were allowed. '.. ' ■■''-.-. V.-