PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9860, 9 March 1896, Page 6

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

At the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on Saturday an application was made for the issue of a prohibition order against a man who strongly denied that he was a fit subject for such an order. The information nad been laid by F. Thompson, who stated that he w*& Secretary to the Prohibition League. He admitted that he knew nothing, of his own knowledge, of the habits of the defendant—that he did not even know him—but said he had laid the information at the request of others. The defendant's brother and wife and another woman gave evidence. The defendant's wife admitted that on the evening on which arose the occasion which finally determined her to promote the application, she and her husband on their way home called at a publio house aud each had a drink. The evidence of the other witnesses was not conclusive, and the application was adjourned to aliow the defendant to produce evidence. Mr Beetham, at the close of the hearing, said he strougly deprecated the practice of persons who were not connected with persons whom they accused, and who, sometimes, as in the present instance, knew nothing, except by hearsay, taking the initiative in putting io force a serious restriction. The proper complainants were tbe relations of the individual whom it was sought to restrain. In this case the person to apply was the wifcs or the brother ; there was no reason whatever for Mr Thompson's interference.