Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1917. MARBLE BAILS AND SUNDAY TRADING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1766, 18 December 1917, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1917. MARBLE BAILS AND SUNDAY TRADING.

IN delivering judgment in a case m which the Wellington ])<>lice proceeded against the owner of a marble bar for Sunday trading, Mr McCarthy said the Police Offences Act, 1998, could not he const rued to ensure the sanctity of the Sabbath, but that its object was to aid physical development by enforcing as far as posible a weekly day of rest. Continuing, (be Magistrate said that the defendant was charged with keeping a shop open on Sunday for the purpose of trading. The Police Offences Acf enacted that “every person is liable (o a fine not exceeding £1 who on Sunday, in or in view of any public place, trades, works at his trade or calling, deals, transacts business, or exposes goods for sale, or keeps open any house, store, shop, bar, or other place for the purpose of trading <H' dealing, with the exception of enumerated works of necessity.” The facts of the ease wore (hat defendant was manager of a marble bar, and on 4th November he kept a bar open. Several persons were at the counter, and a number of others were seated around small tables. All had been served with light refreshments, such as soft drinks, ice creams, tea, coffee, milk drinks, sandwiches, etc. The majority of the customers were residents of Wellington, who could procure refreshment at (heir own homes, ntu] i„ these persons the supply of refreshments was not a necessity. Although the defendant had proved that a light meal on Sunday was a necessity to a limited number of his patrons, it was clear that {he great majority could easily obtain refreshment at their own homes. Shops could not lawfully be kept open merely to satisfy the whims and 'caprices of those who (/ould.supply themselves. The fact that the penalty imposed by the section of the Act was merely nominal, and did not act as a deterrent, was beside the question. The defendant was convicted and fined £l, with costs. Several other cases of A .similar .nature were dealt with in a like manney,