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

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN IMPORTANT POINT

ALLEGED SUNDAY TRADING. WELLINGTON, Jan. 31. Decision was delivered by Air E, Rage, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the case of Elizabeth Little who was charged with selling goods on Sunday in view of a public, place, and of Fiona Clewcr, charged with keeping a shop open on Sunday for the purpose of exposing goods for sale.

In tlm course of his judgment in regard to Little, His Worship remarked tlio defendant was the proprietor of premises in Courtney place, and in the show cases were stocks oi sweets, etc., which were for sale. Loth the businesses of supplying refreshments and of vending confectionery were carried on in tlie same part ol the premises, there being no structural division separating the two. On Sunday, Deceinlwr 7th, a police officer entered the shop and made a small purchase, and found the goods exposed for sale as on week days. hollowing reference to legal decisions of the Supreme Court and counsel’s argument. His Worship quoted a inference in .Mr Justice Adams’s judgment in Fryer v Steele, when His Honour stated that. “ if premises are kept <pon for a double purpose, they are kept open for each purpose.” NO AUCTUAL SALE. “In the present ease,” said the magistrate, “ where the defendant on a Sunday opens her premises and eArries on the business of selling refreshments for consumption on the premises, and also the business of selling goods and exposing goods for sale, it is, f think, a. proper inference that she keeps open for each purpose and so brings herself within the provisions of sub-section 2of the Act. If the selling of the goods is done in view of a public place she may also be convicted under sub-section 1 of the Act.” “Tt was clear,” said His Worship. “ that the net of selling goods in view of a public place had not been established, and the charge would therefore have to be dismissed. Tlie evidence showed, however, that, a charge properly laid of keeping open lor the purpose of trading would secure a conviction.” EXPOSING GOODS. Tn imposing a filio of £1 and costs upon Frank Clcwer for keeping open for the purpose of exposing goods. His Worship remarked that lie had intimated previously that shops must be closed on Sundays in accordance with the law; otherwise heavier fines would lie im--1 Seeuritv of appeal was fixed at CIO 10s six 'other eases being adjourned pending the upper court’s decision.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19250204.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1925, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
413

AN IMPORTANT POINT Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1925, Page 1

AN IMPORTANT POINT Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1925, Page 1

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