ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21216, 12 September 1940, Page 8

ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT QUESTION OF TWO ACTS “The prosecution rather ingenuously argues that because an inspector under the* Shops and Offices Act is defined as meaning an inspector under the Factories Act, and because the former Act gives him the same powers of entry and inspection of shops and offices as he has of factories under the Factories Act, any obstruction of him while carrying out his duties under the Shops and Offices Act which would be punishable as obstruction if such duties were being carried out under the Factories Act, is punishable under the Factories Act,” said Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., when delivering reserved judgment in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, today. “This contention has no foundation in law nor in logic.” The case, which was heard on September 6, was one in which Mr F. W. Ashby, inspector of factories, proceeded against Mate Borich, restaurant proprietor, of Hamilton (Mr H. J. McMullin) on a charge of obstructing an inspector in the course of his duties under the Shops and Offices Act, 1921-22. The prosecution stated that at 11 p.m. on June 29 a factories inspector saw a woman operating as cashier in the restaurant. He entered and questioned Borich and the woman, but neither would disclose her name. The inspector was later told that the woman was not actually working in the shop, but was merely giving a helping hand. “If the legislature had intended that obstruction of an inspector of factories while carrying out his duties under the Shops and Offices Act should be punishable under the Factories Act it would have said so in clear language,” said the magistrate. “That such was not the intention of the legislature is clear from the provision of the special penalties provided for in each Statute. The position, therefore, is that the evidence and the information disclose no offence and the information will be dismissed.”