S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3765, 14 May 1907, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Uel’oru A. D. Thompson, Esq., S.M. MONDAY MAY 13. SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. Charges of employing an assissant after hours, and keeping open after hoursAt the Magistrate Court yesterday before Mr A. D. Thompson S.M. Earnest Ball was charged with having on the 14. inst. employed an assistant after 10.30 p.m. in breach of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act 1905, and on a second charge with having on the 6th. inst. failed to close his shop at the hour of 8 p.m. as required by a requisition of the majority of shopkeepers and duly gazetted. Mr Moore appeared for the defendant and Mr Reade for the Inspector of Factories. The defendant’s Counsel submitted that the first charge disclosed no offence. It was admitted by the Police that the assistant was employed between the hours of 10.30 and 11 p.m. Although 10.30 was the limit imposed by the Amendment. Act of 1905 for the employment of assistants both that Act and the Shops and Offices Act 1904 gave the employer an exemption of half an hour for the employment of his assistants after the hour fixed by statute as the limit. Accordingly in this case no breach of the statute could arise unless the defendant’s assistant was employed after n p.m. Mr Reade in reply contended that the exemption did not apply to the case of employing an assistant to sell goods after hours, but merely his employment in putting the shop in order after closing. The Magistrate upheld the defendant’s plea that the exemption applied to a case of this kind, and dismissed the case.

On the second charge defendant’s Counsel admitted the facts alleged but pleaded in extenuation that when the defendant signed a requisition fixing the hours of closing he supposed he was merely applying for an exemption from ime requisition which was gazzetted on behalf of the majority of the shopkeepers, and accord ingiy did not khow that any hours were fixed for the closing of the hairdresser’s and tobacconist’s shops in Foxton. In addition to this the only ent ranee to the defendant’s billiardroom was through his shop and he was entitled to keep the billiardroom open until 11 p.m. He could only do this by keeping the door of his shop open, it was impossible in this case to make any other entrance, and if he was bound to close the shop at 8 p. m. he could not get the use of the billiardroom for the hours he was entitled to. Further he had on a previous occasion sold the articles in the shop after the closing hour in the presence of the police, and as they had not warned him on that occasion he supposed he was keeping within the law. Constable Woods replied that he had warned defendant several times, but without effect. The magistrate considered that defendant had sufficient notice of the requirements as to closing, and the fact of the billiard-room opening from the shop was not sufficient ground for keeping the latter open after hours. Defeudant must either provide another opening to the billiardroom or keep it closed after closing hours for the shop. Fined 20s, with ns, court costs and 21s solicitor’s fee. ALEEGED FALSE PRETENCES. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr A. D. Thompson S.M., Edgar Watt of Palmerston North Commission Agent was charged with having obtained from Peter Harvest Rae-Howard with intent to defraud by a false pretence the sum of £2. Mr Moore appeared for the informant. Evidence was given by the informant that on the 9th. inst. defendant had come into his office and told him he had a sure buyer for the Oroua Downs Estate, that he wished to drive him out to inspect the property, and if witness would advance him £2 to obtain a horse and trap they would be able to fix the sale between them. The intending purchaser was a man named Wardell. The £2 was paid after the defendant had given repeated assurances that it was a genuine case of his man being sure to purchase. Watt then went away, and witeness went out to make the necessary arrangements. After some searching Wardell was found at an hotel, but on being approached by witness on the subject said he had no intention whatever of inspecting or purchas - ing any property in this district, and had made no arrangements to go out with Watt to see the Oroua Downs property. Watt then came in and on being confronted by witness and Wardell still maintained that Wardell was an intending buyer, which the latter denied. Witness then demanded return of the money which had been optained from him. This was refused Watt winding up with the remark "I owe you £2 10s dp I ? then you can go to. —” Corroborative evidence was given by George Coley who added that Watt had obtained the use of a horse and trap from him for £1 and paid for it.

The Police intimated that the other witness, Wardell had left for Masterton on Saturday before he could be served with a summons to appear. The Magistaate said that he did not consider that a criminal case had been made out. It was clear that Watt in asking for the £2 really did intend to get a horse and trap with it for the purpose of driving Wardell to inspect the property, and actually did obtain the trap although it was not used. In representing that Wardell was a sure buyer he believed that he

might be able to' induce■hiui to purchase, though he may perhaps have been over-sanguine, and he had reason to believe Wardell was an intending buyer of property because he had been previously negotiating wtth him for that purpose. The case would be dismissed. MAINTENANCE. Dunn v, Dunn.—Ernest Dunn was charged by his wife, Annie Dunn, with disobeying a maintenance order made by the Stipendiary Magistrate at Foxton an April 22nd. Mr Moore for complainant. The breach alleged was failure to pay the costs as ordered by the Court. Defendant pleaded that he could not pay it because he had not been earning enough. The Magistrate said the amount must be paid. He did not think the defendant had made much effort to pay it. He would allow him till next Court day, June 24, in which to pay, and if it were not paid by then he would have to be dealt with as a defaulter. Defendant offered to pay by instalments of 4s a month. The Magistrate replied mildly that this would not do. undefended civil cases. A. E. Shadbolt v. first offender judgement costs, 325. 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Thomas Rimmer v Cook and Stevenson, judgement for ss. 6d., balance of contract for building two houses at Himatangi, costs £7 14s. 6., Mr Moore for plaintiff. Thomas Rimmer v. Cook and Stevenson, judgment for contract price for store at Himitangi costs £7 2s Mr Moore for plaintiff. G. H. Stiles v. F. Peterson, judgment £1 3s Bd, costs 5s Mr Moore for plaintiff. G. H. Stiles v. A. J. Harper, judgment £1 8s lid costs 5s Mr Moore for plasntiff. M. and E- M. Austin, (Moore) v. J. De Garnahan judgment £4. 10 costs 10.. Mrs Hooker (Moore) v. Ernest Duun, judgment £3 10s, costs 103.