BOARDINGHOUSES AND THE LAW.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1352, 1 February 1912, Page 4

BOARDINGHOUSES AND THE LAW.

POSITION UNDER TUB SHOPS ACT. IBy Toleeraph.—SDecial CorresnondenH Auckland, January 31. A case of considerable interest to boardinghouso-kcepers and to the. proprietors of private liotoln was arguea before Jlr. 1 ,, . V. Frazer, S.M., yesterday afternoon, llrz. Sclwrff, the proprietress of Glenalvon Private Hotel, was charged with having committed a breach of the Shops and Oflices' Amendment Act, 1910, the information, alleging that she had failed to keep a tim'o and wages sheet book as required by the statute. The general facts of the position woro admitted. The crucial question was that defendant .supplied meals only to lodgers and tho guests of ledgers and did not cater for casual customers. The case resolved itself into an argument of law, the point at issue being whether Glenalvon or similar establishments cam© within the definition 'of "restaurant" in Section 2 of the Act already mentioned.

Counsel for the Labour Department argued that the legislation had now expressly included and brought within tho scope of tlio Act all private Itotfls, declaring them to be "restaurants." Mr. XI ays 'said tho employes in a private hotel were about equal in numlier to the people employed in an ordinary licensed hotel, and they had to do the Maine class of work, with the exception tli.it no barmen or barmaids wore employed in private hotels. Consequently the Act would bo rendered more or less meaningless if the Cflurt held that chefs, waitresses, housemaids, and other employees in private hotels could be willed upon to work unlimited hours, whilst employees performing similar duties in licensed hotels could claim the protection of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act. Mr. Frnzer reserved his decision, but took occasion to reinnrk that Iho question placed before, him was one of uncommon difficulty.