SLOT MACHINES

Hokitika Guardian, 22 April 1929, Page 3

SLOT MACHINES

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. DUNEDIN, April 19. The qucstoin whether mi nutoinnti macliiiie for the sale oi photographs films was n shop was decided by an in teresting j of the Court thimorning. The doioiidants, Hugh an G. K. Neill, were charged under the Shops and Offices Act with failing to close their shop. in giving his judgment Mr W. M llundle, S.M., said the contention o uie prosecution must be either that athe defendant' company was the occu pier of a shop the machine was pari „f the shop, or the machine was a shop per so. Me was of opinion that th • first contention was man Mostly unreas sellable, for it would mean that a per s „n who had a shop and also owned automatic machines would for the pur pose of the Act lie in a worse position than a person who had only one 01 more automatic machines, but no slioj in the usual sense of the term. Secondly, in order to bring an auto malic machine within the definition o i, shop he must find that it was a Imili* in.r or place where goods were kept exposed, or offered -for sale. Automat, machines had been in use for man; years, and if it were intended that they should ho treated as shops, oi that special provisions should apply t< them, it would have been a simple matter to have done so in expres terms under the Shops and Officers Act. After earefulV consideration lie was of the opinion that “occupier” as used in the interpretation clause nee essary implied physical occupation. The information was dismissed.