The Star.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7364, 16 January 1902, Page 2

The Star .

Delivered every eveuing by 6 o'clock iv Hawera, Munaia, .Norinauby, Olraiawa, Elthain, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuua, Opunako, Otalcelio, Manutahi, Altou, Hurleyville, Patea and Waverloy. THURSDAY, JANUARY 16. MAGISTRATES AND THE LICENSING ACT. » It is notorious that juries are unwilling to couvict, and sometimes absolutely refuse to do so, where in their opinion the law provides a penalty out of proportion to the offence. Magistrates, it appears, are following suit, and particularly is this noticeable in regard to the licensing law. Instances have occurred in this district in which avowedly the serious character of the

punishment necessarily to be inflicted where a conviction took place has influenced the Cou v t to seek a way out of a difficulty by dismissing an informtion rather than inflict disproportionate punishment. But one of the uaosti remarkable cases that has come under oue notice was beard in Wellington on Monday. The information charged a licensee with selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and the evidenco for the prosecution was piet.y well as strong as we have ever known it to be in euch cases. " Alexander Cruiokshank, fcergeant of Police, stated that he saw Nisholson stagger acros.3 the footpath in front of the Pier Hotel on the afternoon of December 28tb, and enter the bar. The witness was with Constable Murphy at the time, and they followed the man iato the hotel. Witness saw Nicholson leaning against, and with big arm on, tho bar. A mug of baer wag in front of him. The barman wa3 asking him for another penny for the price of the beer. Nicholson was fumbling in his pocket for the money. He then staggered a fow yards from the counter, spilling the beer on the floor and on himself. At this the witness remarked that it was a disgraceful state of things. Then the barman remarked to Nicholson, "Hand ma back that beer, and I will give you your money back." Witoods told NichoJsoa he had better clear out, but he did not appear to comprehend what wa3 said. Murphy then took him out of the bar, an<i witness remained to see the condition of thß other men present. Coming out ha noticed Nicholson staggering across the pavement in charge of Jlurphy. The man was drunk— legs ami head." Murphy corroborated this statement. The evidenco. of the barman was in direct contradiction, for he swore that the man presented no appearance of being drunk when he asked to be served. However, it may be admitted that it was a strange case, and it is that circumstance which gives especial point to the remarks of the Magistrate, Mr Haselden, S.M. He said, in deciding on the case, he required to consider more carefully the question of convicting where the consequences were enormous than where the consequences were trivial. Continu- \ ing, he said : ' I have no doubt that the Legislature directed section 146 to a state of things that wis it finitely worse than anything thii is dieclosed in the present ease. It was directed against the wiiful fcupply of iiquor to mea in a state of Jntoxi;afcion. I am quite sure it nevtr was? inUndei that a publican should forfeit his who'e fortune — as may well be the case in this instance — because hi 3 servant hud been deceived for a moment by a customer whom he was supplying with liquor at a time when the cus- ' tomer already had more lhan sufficient. It may bo said that Ins bamian ! could tell at a glance that this man had h*d too much. I do nob think so. I have had an opportunity of seeing that man after fifteen days of abstinence from drink, and I think it quite possible that tho barman ! might have been deceived. At all events, I am quite satisfied that this is not a flagrant case, calling for a ruinous penaliy, and I cm inflct no other. We must judge tbiq case reasonably. J. am very anxious indeed that the licensed* victuallers , should not think that* they can ' relax their vigilance at all on ' account of my decision in Ihh \ case. Mr King just escapes, but he does not escape by very much, and I hope that the police will not relax j their vigilance and allow any laxity with regard to the supply of liquor to drunken men. The heavier the penalty the more strictly should the Court examine any ground of doubt, and require tho greatest certainty of proof, I think the right 1 decision in this case is to dismiss it." It was announced that the question of appeal would be considered by tho prosecution, but subject to an appeal being made and upheld we shou'd say that veiy few cases will bo brought under section 146 until the punishment provided for broach of it is modified. No doubt it is diffi oult to follow the log'c of magisterial argument that less care is necessary in weighing proof where the penalty is in the opinion of the Court reasonable, but it is common experience that when a law is unreasonable its administrators drop strict logic, and manufacture arguments for exercising a discretion which the Legislature, judged by its words, probably never intended them to exercise. The plain truth is that it is impossible for the Legislature, in definitely fixing irreducible or irrevocable penalties, to foresee all circumstances which may arise, and when the circumstances reduce the gravity of the offence, administrators seek a means of evading the letter of the law.