SUNDAY TRADING

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 138, 28 February 1918, Page 8

SUNDAY TRADING

CASE OF THE MARBLE BARS

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION •v UPHELD An unportaut decision which will doubtless, havo a far-reaching effect ou the operation of the Sunday trading law was delivered in the Supreme Court .yesterday by/ the Chief Justico (Sir llobert Stout). ¥. O. I!. Jlunro, Jessie Davis, and Violet ])ulf, managers for tho three shops operated iu Wellington by the Marble Bars, Ltd., appealed against a magisterial conviction for keeping tlio shops open for tho purpose of trading on Sunday, November 4 last. For tho purpose of legal argument the three appeals were treated as one.

Mr. A. AV. Blair appeared for the appellants, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey for the Crown. Tho apical hinged largely oji whether tho action oF the appellants was an act of necessity, aud in his judgment His Honour pointed out that tho Magistrate had found that tho various appellants kept their shops open, but he had also found that it was a necessity to certain people who were' patrons of the shops to obtain refreshments on Sunday. It appeared from the statement made at the hearing that similar shops were kept open at Lyall Bay, Day's Bay, and other parts on the eastern side of the harbour on Sunday for the supply of food to people wb.o wore travelling on the Sunday. Thu Magistrate had found that there were several persons in tho, appellants' shops being served with light refreshments, such as soft drinks, ice creams, tea, coffee, cocoa, milk drinks, bread and butter, meat sandwiches, cakos, pastry, and such like, on the Sunday. He also found that a few patrons came regularly for light meals on all Sundays. Seme of those lived in apartments, or what was termed "bach" in houses rented or owned by themselves respectively. Others visited Wellington on Sunday for the day, returning home in the evening, ilieso made no provision for supplying themselves with meals. To all these the supply of light refreshments was a necessity. Continuing, His Honour remarked that having found that the supply of meals was a necessity tp certain people who visited the shops, it could not be said that keeping tho ■shops open was not a work of necessity. Where were they to get Possibly thoy might visit hotels, but it was stated that tho charges in hotels were heavier, and many people objected to visit hotels. This was no. a charge e of selling goods to a customer, nor did the Act assume that the shopkeeper was bound to differentiate between people who visited Ins shop-namely, only to supply a certain class, and not another class, flip offence was of keeping open a shop. If, therefore, it was a necessity tor his shop to be open he, could not be convicted. „ . , "It may be," proceeded Sir Robert, "that the- law is inefficient. It is to be observed, however, that if people could get food in their own houses and we're forced to do so,, and not to get it, at restaurants, it might be thnt more work would be done and more people employed on tl.eSm.daj, t-an the restaurants were kept open, be cause it would mean that people se - vmts and others would be kept « hour's providing meals for those peop o who go to the restaurants. If, the e fore, the restaurants were closed the o ■ISil to^pSrtcidi llS ly allowed. FINES INFLICTED IN THE SOCTH. • ]iy Telwraph-PreM Association. Christohurch, lebruary 2 be had done it at h;.s private iosid°John Whittle was fined ss. for a sistance.