73

H.—ll

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISIONS GIVEN DURING THE YEAR 1907-8 UNDER THE FACTORIES ACTS, THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT, MASTER A,\D APPRENTICE ACT, SCAFFOLDING INSPECTION ACT, AM) SERVANTS' REGISTRY OFFICES ACT. APRIL, 1907. Wanganui. —(Shops and Offices Act): A shopkeeper was fined £5, and costs Bs., for failing to close his shop at 9 p.m. on Saturday in accordance with a gazetted requisition. Defendant pleaded that he sold fruit and bread in addition to groceries, and claimed exemption on that account. Feilding. —(Shops and Offices Act): A Chinaman was fined £1, with £1 10s. costs, for employing an assistant after 9.30 p.m. on a Saturday. He was also fined £1, with £1 10s. costs, for failing to close his shop at 9 p.m. on a Saturday in accordance with a gazetted requisition by shopkeepers fixing the closing-hours. Defendant sold groceries and fruit. Palmerston North. —(Shops and Offices Act) : A firm was charged with employing two assistante after 9.30 p.m. on a Saturday without a permit from the Inspector. The case was dismissed, as the manager was away on holidays when the offence was committed, and the Magistrate upheld the contention that the assistant was the occupier for the time being. The Magistrate commented on the fact that the Act did not compel employers to notify the Inspector of any permanent or temporary change in the management of any business. The assistant mentioned was later fined £1, with costs £1 Bs., for the offence. (Factories Act) : A case against a firm of tailors, for employing a tailoress overtime without a permit from the Inspector, was dismissed. A permit had been granted for two hours on the evening specified, but the employee was found at work after the time had expired. The Magistrate held the work she was doing was not on account of the firm. A case against the employee for working overtime without a permit was also dismissed, as the work she was doing was for herself. Tima.ru. — Shops and Offices Act.—Closing of Offices for Weekly Half-holiday. A dairy company was charged on fourteen different informations with breaches of the Shops and Offices Act of 1904. Mr. J. W. White appeared for the Labour Department (the charges being laid by Inspector Keddie), and Mr. S. G. Raymond for the defendant company, for whom he pleaded not guilty in respect of all the informations. The first information charged the company with failing to close its office either on Saturday or Thursday afternoons on certain specified dates for the customary half-holiday to which office hands are entitled. Mr. White said the information was laid under section 23 of the Act, which said that " Every office shall be closed not later than 1 o'clock on the afternoon of every Saturday, and 5 o'clock in the afternoon of every other working-day, and shall continue closed for the remainder of the day." Then, section 24 provided that, in the event of any other day than Saturday being appointed as the closing-day for shops in any district .... the occupier shall be entitled to close on that day instead of Saturday; but in this case the defendant company had given no notice of their intention to close on any other day. The case was, perhaps, a novel one in respect of factories. In some cases the factories and the office were in the same building, but in this case they were apart, and as the Act provided that the office should be closed for the weekly half-holiday, and it had not been closed, there had been a clear breach of the law. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said, " The whole question, it seems to me, is narrowed down to a definition of ' office ' under the Shops and Offices Act of 1904 to show whether or not clerical work was carried on within the factory. That, I presume, must be settled by a definition as to what constitutes a factory. If a factory means only the one building, then they would not be entitled to an exemption. If it includes all the buildings on the place, then the exemption would apply. One has further to inquire why it has been necessary to exempt freezing-works, and so on. This was explained by the'fact of freezing-works having an office not only at the factory, but also in town. It seems plain enough to me that ' factory ' does include the whole place. The mere fact of clerical work being carried on a few feet away from the building does not affect the question, inasmuch as a factory includes the whole of the premises where the work of the factory is carried on. If that is so, the dairy factory is exempt from the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act, and the information could not apply. It is perhaps an important matter, and if my interpretation of the Act is not accepted a test case can be prepared for the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances I will dismiss the information." Mr. White asked that the other informations be held over until Monday next, and this course was agreed to, though His Worship said he supposed the same principle would apply in all. The appeal in the above case was heard on the 6th and 15th February, 1907, at the Supreme Court, Timaru. The report is as follows :— "Shops and Offices Act, 190£," Sections 2 and S3 — Meaning of Factory — Closing Office attached to Factory — Exemption from. The Court is entitled to look at kindred statutes for the definition of an expression concerning related Acts, and therefore it may ascertain from "The Factories Act, 1901," the meaning of the word " factory " in " The Shops and Offices Act, 1904," that word not being defined in the latter statute."

10— H. 11.