POLICE COURT.—Wednesday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IX, Issue 2520, 22 February 1872, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday.

fßefora Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—Two drunkards wore fined in the usual penalty, or sentenced in defeulfc.

JiiiEACK -op Licensing Act.—Robert Uojwood, proprietor of the Auckland Hotel, was charged, under the Licensing Act Amendment Act, 1871, with haying two bars opening into the public street. Mr. Beveridge appeared for the defendant.— Sergeant JSgan said that he visited the Auckland Hotel, in which the defendant was licensed to sell alcoholic and fermented liquors. There was a bar opening upon High-street and another upon Queen-street. The defendant wag licensed under the Licensing Act 1871 (Provincial Council), but the Amendment Act had been passed since that time, and it was under this ct u, at the prosecution was brought Th witness said that the defendant had "been nreri, ' l3 ' y P, rosecuted llnd er the "firil" Ant 'it the case was dismissed. -m?. it °L 7X ' V ' ed lhafc Mr - *°°* received a Hcp DI V to sell ecexved a licence from f.bs v , ence continnpH fTa°wh a o l tl>B Cffe f ° f r cceived his or a whole year. At the timer h« . ~ thel . e l.cence, for wluch he paid «, l argff SQt ' . st ion was no Amendment Act, and when the qu t . ''e was tiled under the Act as it then JLI w prosecution failed. The fact was, that both tha > ™nl™T e v T ileywood entered into a | contract, binding on both for a period of a 1 whole year. Neither party had any right to alter the terms of the contract without the consent of the other. It was already held that «r' 0i , h ' ld not against the lirst Act, and the" Amendment Act (1871)" altered the terms of a contract between two distinct and separato parties. It would be most unjust to interpret an Act as Win- a retrospective force, for in that case a conviction might have the effect of committing a great hardship —His Worship said that under what was called the "first" Act it was said that no person licensed under this Act" shall have more than one bar opening or abut ting upon any one public street or thoroughfare. The effect of that was that if there were twenty streets thero might be twenty bars. He believed that the eflect of the Amendment Act was an injustice to Mr. Hey wood for when he obtained his licence he understood that it was to extend over the year. He did uot think that any Council had power to pass two Acts in one year. He did not know whether these two were passed m one session. Ho would not have been very much surprised if it had beeu so. The clumsy language of the first Aet put the whole matter in confusion. J3ut the Bench eoukl only carry out the law, not overrido it. He was afraid lie must give an adverse verdict, and so infli -t a hardship on the defendant. He hoped ho.jover, that in the event of his coming lo such a determination the police would withdraw the charge. It might appear sufficient if the effect of the Act should have become generally known—Sergeant Pardy said he would bo content to withdraw tho charge upon the understanding that the defendant closed up one of his bars.—His Worship thought the defendant should give that undertaking. Not doing so would expose him to the imputation of acting against the law. iio Would not be so uuwise us to decline it His Worship said ho would think the matter over, and give judgment on Saturday. iliis concluded tile business,