Untitled

Northern Advocate, 2 July 1887, Page 3

SißjfrHPermit me to reply through your valuable paper to the remarks made by Mr Harrison in your last week's issue coupling my name with the same With reference to dust being thrown iv the eyes of the people, they were not so blinded that they could not see that a great injustice had been done by closing these houses, and arose to a man to express their, .indignation at tho same. Again Mr Harrison's play on the word monopoly. I suppose there are men who know as well; as himself that a license granted by law to do a certain thing, sell or vend under the restriction of the law, is a monopoly. If the said law had been sot at naught by any of the said holders of licenses, which is infeied in Mr Harrison's letter as their reason for closing them, it was the duty of the Bench to give tho offender notice required by law, that he may answer to the charge in form ; instead of which advantage" was taken of the 75 clause to cover their lapse of the law, by stating not required. With reference to my telling Mr Harrison, or saying anything to him (if that is 'his meaning) I deny ever holding any conversation with him on- the subject. 1 may, when on the Bench, have said to Dr. Sissons and others, that if, these "charges were in writing and proved, the license would be ! forfeited, and that was with regard to one house only, and the lose would be to the holder of the license, and would not prevent the house or owner availing himself of the privilege of obtaining another license. To deprive the people, without giving them notice or time to dispose of their stock, is one of the most arbitrary acts on record. 7 It is not doing to your neighbour as you would be done by.— fours, <fee, H. C. HOLMAN.