THE LAW COURTS HOTEL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 12028, 28 October 1903, Page 8

THE LAW COURTS HOTEL CASE.

j TO THE EDITOR. 5 Sir,—The practice of allowing promiscuous I criticism in the public Press of tho actions t of those entrusted with judicial functions. as tending to diminish the authority of the 3 courts, is- not altogether to be commended. , yet the interest each citizen has in the .;d----f ministration of the laws justifies occasional reference in a proper manner to the decisions 1 given by onv magistrates and others of the ; powers that lie. I. would therefore beg { leave to follow “8.C.L.” in his view of the , case under discussion. Tn this case Mr 3 Graham finds as a fact .that Rohan was not j. drunk. The police bring another action 3 against the licensee of the Law Courts fc Hotel for permitting drunkenness, ami Mr Carcw findi as a fact that the licensee is I guilty—that is, he finds as a fart, concern- > ing Rohan what Air Graham was unable 3 to find. In these circumEtances cocns'l , or defendant, very properly as it ap- £ pears, asks ieaA'o to appeal, and appeal is - refused on the ground “that Mr Justice 3 Denm.iton had expressed himself s-tronglv k against appeals from a magistrate on qnese tions of fact. ’ A declaration of this 3 kind from so eminent an authority as Judge £ Denniston must certainly he received with s respect, and acted upon in the lower courts, 3 but, why in this case was the principle not £ applied earlier in the dav and the case dist missed, as hein-g an appeal front Air Gra--3 ham on a putrid cm of fact? After Mr 3 Garew had given his decision adversely to a, Mr Graham it was mo late to refuse appeal J on the ground mentioned. Io in strange i that the only means Air Garew had of jusrinh> refusal of ajjjieal was by i Lf-

application ot a principle which destroyed nfo own right to give a decision.—l am, Nkiicla. October 27. SCRIPTURE READING AT THE COMPETITIONS. to the anrroß. i.itr.—-Will you assist me in doing what uuiv appear, at the first blush of it, to bo a danng—a presumptuous—thiug? It is tn criticise au editor, and that editor vemse.lf. And yet, when 1 reflect on the mat;. . . 1 T iiinH I might plead that, as His \V. r Ay tho Mayor of Dunedin takes the same view a f I am, after all, disserting from tee opinions of a mere mayor as much , from those of an editor. In ench view , the presumption might not be regarded as . -'j* v< --ry glaring. This preamble is some- , khing lengiliy. Well, seriously, I wish to . cr.tcr my respectful demurrer to the dictum I that the Competitions Committee introduced s without due consideration a selection from ( the Scriptures; to the hope that such will | not be again attempted, and to the aver- , nient that such reading “does not produce * 0:1 kbe part of a mixed audience that rcvcf rcntial spirit which should always characterise Biblical readings.” Now—of course, expressing just my individual opinion—I think the Committee did 1 wisely in deciding upon a Scripture read- - ing. and eminently wisely in selecting that ; beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son.° Fur- * thermore, I trust that, they will do the same thing next year, if it be onlv to make 1 prominent this truth.; that, there is no r peculiar tone to be set. apart for reading the Bible in. I believe the idea—existent s pretty widely, no doubt—that there is such 1 a- rone to be altogether a false, a mischievous * notion, begetting much of that bad reading to which so many of those whose special 2 duty it is to read the Scriptures perfectly t are prone. The Bible should be read like 1 any other hook! At first sight this may seem a startling, an irreverent statement; > hut look into it carefully, and it will be ■ seen that it is the very opposite. Yes, read - the Bible as you would any other book—--3 that is, read every chapter and every verse L hi the tone suited to the spirit of them. 4 ;tnd in no other way. There arc those, I t am aware, who would read the Commandt mems, polemical disquisitions of Paul, the ■ denunciations of Pharisaical hypocrisy, that r exquisite wailing over Jerusalem, - the parables, the tbundermgs of tho indignant ’ prophets, the complainings of Job.” the I luscious imagery of the Canticles, the dei scrip tion nf the New Jerusalem, the Psalms, s joyous and penitential, all thr; narratives- ' to mention subjects just at random—in i the same key. and mostly in a false voice. ; I imagine it is almost needless to sav that > there ought io he always a markedly rcvc--1 tent, tone for the ipsissima vcrlu, of the Almighri. ■ Holding, then, the views that I have thus r hastily set down., it will not bo surprising } that 1 am a strong advocate for the retenr tion of Bible reading in future competitions, trusting, as ] do. that a higher standard , will be reu-Jx-d hi that department thau 3 has as yet been, attained to by competitors, or even—-with diffidence. IHi it spoken—by judges. Doubtless, not a few of those who r entered in this section this- year chd so with r a- vague feeling that “ anyone can read the Bible. ITiey know better now.—l am, f c,< ; - Ai.Kßvn 11. Bnirn',. T t h.'-ohfT 27.