ANTI-SHOUTING LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16375, 1 November 1916, Page 8

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW.

BAR-WORKERS* COMPLAINT.

| An- official of the Wellington Hotel Emj ployees' Union, in conversation with a reporter, stated that it was considered that the anti-shouting regulations were unfair and pressed with undue severity on the bar-workers. If there were reasonable cause to suspect a breach the onus of disproof was thrown on the defendant, but the methods employed in securing convictions made it very difficult for the worker to secure the evidence to controvert that put forward by the t osecution. If a Dar attendant were to be charged with serving a juvenile or a person under the influence of liquor he had to be notified immediately after the commission of the offence, but under the anti-shouting regulations there was no such safeguard. Before the man knew that he was to be prosecuted he had probably forgotten all about the incident on which the charge was based, and such evidence as he might have procured was ■ not available. The double penalty also was objected to. The imposition of the employment disqualification f,-„. six months was " o! , cum i "i" 'i 1 vi'!: -V magistrate. lu any use, it «a contended punishment twice for the same offence was 1 against, tie traditions of British justice.