Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4888, 21 November 1876, Page 2

It seems that some difficulty has occurred through the Disqualification Amendment Act, passed early last session, to enabls Mr. Hislop, formerly Crown Prosecutor for Oamaru, to hold his seat. Mr. Hislop ceased to be Crown Prosecutor, and at the last sitting of the District Court for Oamaru, which took place yesterday, a curious embroglio occurred. The solicitors for the defence of the cases on the list were all in readiness, amongst them being Mr. Denniston, specially retained from Dunedin. But when the “ Judges were met in terrible show,” it turned out that no Crown Prosecutor had been appointed, and consequently an adjournment took place until Wednesday. No indictments had been prepared, and no one was present to conduct the cases for the Crown. This little bungle is likely to cause considerable expense, as the witnesses in the cases will be detained in Oamaru for two days. The facts we have mentioned have been telegraphed to us by our special correspondent.

The quarterly meeting of the Licensing Bench will take place on the sth proximo, and whilst our Licensing Bench has mostly to trouble itself over questions of insufficient accommodation, or non-requirement by a locality of the particular license applied for, it may not seem inappropriate to draw attention to a matter not yet investigated here, but which seems to have occupied the attention of certain authorities at Home. What is called (remarks the Law Times) “ a long-contested point between the police and the licensed victuallers,” was decided’ a few days ago by the Riverstone magistrates. Two publicans were charged with having on their premises a number of glasses of loss capacity than half-a-pint of imperial standard, Pines were inflicted, and the glasses forfeited, the Bench being of opinion that the possession of measures other than such as were of imperial standard was an offence against the Licensing Acts. If the action of the Ulverstone police and magistrates was followed in other parts of the kingdom we should soon have numberless cases of the kind at petty sessions. There appears to be an opinion prevalent amongst publicans that if a glass of ale is asked for, the customer asks for a glass without regard to the quantity, and as a matter of fact the quantity is generally uncertain. The glass has certainly come to be looked upon as quite a different measure from the half-pint imperial measure, and the fact is as patent as it well can be. The report of the Ulverstone case is very meagre, nor does it state clearly what amount of evidence was before the Court. It affords sufficient evidence, however, to show that the decision is one which affects a large proportion of a large body—namely, retailers of intoxicating liquors.