UNKNOWN

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 78, 27 March 1886, Page 2

UNKNOWN

Power of PoMce t, z^ jff The cose of Johanna Snßiv^^HT tbo Shamrock Botot, failing to admit Sergeant Mnir? B*l^8*1^ hotel while the oificlr was inSI of his duty on a rwert aS •*"»_ " came before the Fo U(^«fe, day. It will be riMwhen tho case was heard S :tk Mr Cotter, who appeared faW^l raised the point that the SeStW' no demand to enter in accord.-. Act. He relied on a Cfe*»s Worship pn the point, and fe^ dismissal cf the case. His W^_?- ■ =ft» ; over, referred 40 a more reran.)-Ji ?> '&W Mr Justice Wilibpu, whSJ>V of reversing this iaf.sjpretation.fX?** Under tln.se circumßt^cevMrfir**'' t >r a i emand in order that he aZT^ authorities on the point, itud'the"' »'P adjourned for a week. "V

When the case was colled (Mtmil® Mr Cotter said Hi, iff**' member that the case^*ls|S*' order that ho might refer HiSf"??'' authorities which bore on thereof? b of Mr Justice Williams, CJ.^: lh^, any/ Br? on; being a s£2_* 1 hotel, and refusing to admlf _ SlSBw should be liable, &c. ThefiSffv he raised, and which His'W_m*t«?'!w : viously decided ia another _^ * favour, was that the conßtaffdu * make a demand to enter 80. ■ ** sequence of. a decision' sini'"^ by Mr Justices Williams, • Sife waa contrary to His Worahip',, 3L** objection was disposed of. fc SH thPr f^ Sft no*, l° f»W«M»fIOIT^ of Judge Williams', decision. sS^ hud to rely upon were them»»_,iv:Won the subject He belieJSfe ship also hadateleeram oonfirmin ß Zir mation that the ruling had been S'wfirst point was that no expresi dmS?w c made by the constable. P %s£*s[ w ? as to_ whether the evident defective in not showing an.,..™?' ground which the ronstaSb-SLjSgft ing. The evidence tended to^&'£S olhcers were simply mrtbgtStf ciSZ" round at the time of their visit toHS? and thero was nothing deposed'^ bad led to the impression that ti_™'* anything suspicious about the hotel™' ? whole of the evidence referred to i^r the olhcers caw after theireDtiSS^ which was unknown before tW^uK?> '■ nutted. Though he could : not hSft decision on tho point, still be '■*«« jsS"' an authority, which was 'PatteaqfiaS ' Licensing Laws. This vaa onlr-S ' test writor's version, but wm.ijJl™, consideration, It referred to thiitimifc section of tho English Licen_ing7(|»? " i.e., Section 16, whloh^ eecaon '#_!(_ft exact language of our own, thong. Rome reason it would appear total*! divided by our Legislature into two, section held that it w__ „_jl" to give special re&son to>|£f and in casos of dispute the police m»S reason for believing that the jtstiit, «!' about to be violated. Again, in IBmfifl paragraph, a constablemustgivemdlllir porno reasonable' grounds for enteijeg H Cotter submitted on both thai hH| that tho case ehould bo dirnijaa, Itj the decision were against.him,-hiW that seeing this \ia= tbe SntSl that His Worship's decision on tte 541 ' had boon questioned, and aW jiiifj, olfonco was a trivial one, that lisa« would bo dismissed. P'.'-M His Worship referred to tbs lucttbit lis section in our own Act was divrtai bin two, while in tho English Act it roW one. Tho point) occurred to bini yilietlg there was not some difference inintmfti. tion when the section was out up titlgk, sections. Mr Cotter : There are at aU'tmjjroa'J grounds for believing that.,the•coi.-rtaUet: r must demand to enter. His Worship: But wo ore njiselciillii point. Mr Cotter proceeded to point oiit'llni our section was only, a division of _!w_|ii.: . lish one. His Worship: But-iinj ttc__i-;s;teiiia this section only, and not of ,ft%sHn|j section. ,-4 Mr Cotter thought it veryJ anlortaoiit that they had not before theA wtutf terms of Mr Justice Williams's ile-ista, His Worship said it. must be..jijjk that tho Legislature, intending toi-trwla the English law, divided itiatotnottittq and loft out the reference to tho »rec«i___» section. Sergeant Pratt remarked.thepolf®if-. al ways held that under the le. _li SMtktltj could ontor at any time in O-dorfo'ttr breaches of the statute, ~"'!.» His Worship said, as totbe Irtt-pj-t,' thatso far as he waaablewgMnMori-it-J respecting Mr Justice Wi-lu___rtHtaH»f. ho was informed that" it had, beeadasW that all that was necessary for tho «■•■ stable to- state was that hy'ftt 1 constable, and wanted locomsin.vjlt'n prosumed that the conß_ableffiHßß| reasonable grounds -for demanding tomtt ■

Ho did not express an opinion -.on tin a... joct without hesitation. With rupsti the second objeelion, ho did not welun.ii could reconcile Mr Cotter's contents?! til1 the words of the statute, vhirajtn jg the constable should outer, not only («& purposo "I "preventing'1 butalMßW toctiog " broaches of the law.- !b;l» foto decided the point aguht-t Mtbotttf. His Worship : Mi you triah ffISBR evidence, Mr Cotter? 1 Mr Cotter then ti.'-kod tbo 1«» exercise the power which it poaass J; dismissing the case, or itiffiefcg.™'; nominal penalty. He said i-_aMnb3 Justice Williams's decision »«'P« hotel-keepers followed the pwwo*** forded in Lynch's case, where tLiW*? decided in favour of t_n.dr-ei.da.-.- ■«* dismissal of the case or a nO» |l gf ; ; might suffice, so that it lniphl go I<w» the publicans that the point m»-lw» against them. ~, Sergeant Pratt said he did nottSM heavy penalty, buthereepsetfoltagßr that a conviction ehould be ejterei Mr Cotter remarked tbat.Mtß-Bfw would leave the house aW)geflß;« Thursday, co that there would be«amtrouble with her. ..;.; , • Seigeant Pratt, in replyvPO'^S that the conviction had not bm m*x> on thelicenae. , . — Hie Worship infiictod a fine ol i""