View report page

145
shops were closed, and in the second to keeping his shop open for
the purpose of selling cooked meat after the closing time. The
Court held that neither salt pork nor cooked meat came within
the purview of the Butchers' Closing Order. In the four instances
where convictions were obtained under the Butchers' Closing
Order they referred to butchers and a provision dealer keeping
their shops open after the closing hour for the sale of fresh meat.
Grocers', Provision Dealers', and General Shopkeepers'
Half-holiday Order.
Eighteen cases have been brought before the Court and fines
imposed in each instance. They referred to butchers selling eggs,
cooked meat, and dripping; greengrocers selling eggs, tinned
fruit, and vinegar; ham and beef dealers selling eggs and sauce;
general shops keeping open for the sale of goods after the closing
time; and dairymen selling cheese and cocoa.
It will be observed how one trade takes advantage of the
closing of another trade to sell articles that do not come within
the limit of their own business.
The most important proceedings instituted under the
Act referred to the case of a butcher selling dripping in
contravention of the Provision Dealers' Half-holiday Order. It
was argued before the magistrate that dripping was meat and a
perishable article, but the Court decided against the defendant on
these points, and imposed a small fine. It was considered by the
butchers' trade to be of great importance, as the decision decided
the question whether a butcher could sell cooked meat when the
provision shops were compulsorily closed. The magistrate was
asked to state a case for the Superior Court, which he did. The
appeal was heard by three learned Judges, when the appellant
dropped the two points that had been strongly contested before
the magistrate, and contended that selling dripping was part of
the butchers' business, and on this point the appeal succeeded.
The presiding Judge stated that "articles which are sold in the
ordinary course of two businesses, our view is that the selling by
a man of such an article (dripping), an ambiguous article, an
article which is sold by him in the ordinary course of his own
business is no evidence ol his carrying on the other business,
although in that other business it is also sold. This judgment