Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article text has been marked as completely correct by a Papers Past user on 15 October 2024.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RIVAL SHOPKEEPERS

ALLEGED TRAP FOR SUNDAY TRADING. There were some curious aspects to an ordinary charge of Sunday trading which was preferred against Agnes Jackson, a small confectioner, carrying on business in Lambton Quay, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The evidence in the case showed that some doors away from Mrs. Jackson's shop is a rival shop purveying the same wares. Recently, it was alleged, the brother of the owner of the latter establishment, Thomas Henry Callingham, secured the services of a youth and another person to act as witness. The former he commissioned one Sunday to buy sixpennyworth of sweets. The youth went in and made the purchase off the unsuspecting Mrs. Jackson, while Callingham and the other accomplice waited outside. The bag of sweets was purchased, and as alleged by counsel for the defence (Mr. H. F. O'Leary), Callingham rushed away to the police station and "triumphantly flashing" the purchase before the police, caused an information to be laid. Mrs. Jackson was subsequently summoned to answer two charges, one of keeping her shop open on Sunday for the purpose of transacting business, and the other that in view of a public place she traded on Sunday. When giving his evidence in Court yesterday, Callingham came in for a severe cross-examination from Mr. O'Leary. In the first place, he denied that his real name was Cunningham, while he "did not remember" having previously and unsuccessfully tried to trap Mrs. Jackson. "You are not above telling a lie now and then, Callingham?" queried counsel. "Not any more than you are yourself," replied Callingham. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. O'Leary submitted that the sole evidence as to the purchase of the lollies was that of the youth whom Callingham had commissioned to buy the lollies, and as he was an accomplice his evidence must be corroborated. The Magistrate replied that he would dismiss the second information, and would impose a small fine of 5s. on the other charge.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150213.2.75

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2384, 13 February 1915, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
329

RIVAL SHOPKEEPERS Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2384, 13 February 1915, Page 9

RIVAL SHOPKEEPERS Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2384, 13 February 1915, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert