OWNERSHIP OF SHOP

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 672, 25 May 1929, Page 13

OWNERSHIP OF SHOP

HUSBAND^OR WIFE? FORMER FINED £lO

(From Our Own Coi~rcspondent) KAITAIA, Today. Whether a shop was owned by the wife of a storekeeper to overcome the early closing regulations was the question which Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., had to decide when David Archibald was charged with failing to close his shop on the statutory half-holi-day. MR. A. BENNETT, inspector of factories at Whangarei, prosecuted, and Mr. C. F. C. Miller appeared for the defence. The evidence went to show that the shop in question was seperate from Archibald’s main business, although on the same allotment. It complied with the regulations as to closing on other days of the week. The sole proprietor was defendant’s wife, whose own personal money was invested in the stock, which was purchased from D. Archibald and Sons in the ordinary way of business at cost price, plus freight and cartage. No employees of defendant’s helped his wife in the store. Defendant had no interest in the store whatsoever other than a sentimental one. Defendant held that the idea of the store had originated with his wife in order that the needs of district farmers could be supplied on Saturday afternoon. Half-way through the case the magistrate asked defendant, “Can you honestly say that you had in mind any other motives of getting round the statutory provisions?” Witness: I can’t. Again pressed by the magistrate, defendant said it was to meet the needs of the district. The prosecution contended that although the store was owned and financed by the wife, such a subterfuge was not permitted by law. The magistrate held as a fact that the store belonged to the defendant. To find otherwise would be an affront to average intelligence. Defendant was fined £lO and costs.