THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5803, 22 January 1906, Page 7

THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

(To tli. Editor "N.Z. Time,. ) H j r —Oono uro the good aid day» for tin- poor wight! Though dimly, '*•«>>■ lu ,,i on ]titled stood, ■&» may no lonfcu jolly hoot to tin ok Mm f.rth a stoop of ale or quart of sack while food is found for man . and beatit . IHic.s no: i’tckwuik rise and shake Ms kindly head? Priiico Hal “4. thoro too. stand aghast, while ln*t Tuck' rolls forward claiming another bout of quarter-staves with King K.th“xbe Supreme Court now decides that Parliament h«o intentionally deprived the bona-fide traroller of his tune honoured right to obtain necessary refreshment during those hours when licensed nremiMW am closed, and this deem on is S« a mere opinion w to the construction of the acts, it actually makes the law to bo HO until an tn-^a Otherwise: it is more inJia bblo than a p£un«memt *•« cathedra 1 from Romo on a matter of faith and morals, because Svwt person in the land must how to it. vet d differs in that it may be oi|t.ul> by tbooo who have to submit Licensing Act, 1331. an acta (a) that nothing therein shall preclude an mnkwper from selling, liquor to a bona-fide traveller during closing hours, and (b) that if the innkeeper cannot prove the traveller to be hon.% fide yet that if the innkeeper took reasonable precautions to ascertain hio bona fidew. and really believed it he shall not be liable to a pon"’*Tbe Ifrti Amending Act repealed the first of three proviaione, via.,, (a), and in lieu thereof enacted that the licensee might sell liquor to the bona (id* traveller on arriving from n journo-, hat it did not repeal the provision (b). Tho 19W Amending Act repealed the provision* of tho ItfA'. act m so tar m thov related to b-oua fide travellers, and imposed a penalty on poiwono found on in en ,o*l premiees during cloidiig hours, rot it allowed a powon, to loiind, to cscai<n the js-imltv if he could prove he a. 4 not breaking the licensing laws Now, long before New Zealand existed ns a colony, thoro mw the Common Law o* linvliind". an itnporSanl brunch of •which "wiiti the law of common inns ami common innkeoperM, and this common law of Kngiiind became tho law m Now /(inland by the more fact of settlement, unite apart Horn any art of i'arliiiinoiil. ilv this law tho wavside inn was open to hll-rorners. no decent pereon might he refuecd such shelter and accommodation m >he landlord had to give him. and thy landlord could be indicted for refusing; •for hv keeping a common inn he gave an implied iirfiie to all the world to enter hiit doors; and this law of inns and innkeojMTK 'lieeawa the law of New Zealand, h wavstda iiinn were a necessity in the Old Counter, how much more in tho lievr colour.' And the Licensing Act. 1881, recognises this, for it expressly provideo that every lucn-rd pcrwin is a common innkeeper, .and every licensed house is » com man inn. anu it imimsesa C-Uialtv nr'Ci! the landlord mr refusing -to supply lodging. meals, or nrcommodvtion lo travellers.” In it not therefore reasonable to suppose .lhat when tho Legislature repealed the leuactmenta 1 n regard to 1.-ona tide travellers the intention was to throw thorn n[>on thrir common law nghisr tor it aUmvs the bona fid-traveller to bo upon liem-w-d premises during (dosing ic-ur--, and it ciprossly. by provision b, abowa tine bcensoo to escape a I‘cnaltv lor supplying him with liquor by tnKing rea. ’oi-tbl- pr-cantions to ascertain In.- I»n» ade-i Is this not n more rcasonablo in-

tcr-im-tadim than that which imput'* a ! . r • K<• 1.,yi2.2 u. uu't m > "<"t | -. i---.;.,. !,v hfp.'u:;; IP;.; *■ J o- i ~1,. p, d bv 77i'*l-‘ 7 mu.l.Vvmi, • , K..- fi:-. f in- ;u b'mr.’t ; •pj v^pi . ,j'i' tire ili --is-icr- ink v mi;. I ■ U; - V. ,I V I :i, 7 ? ■!' IM.iV a ., ~,D-;yl:; ! - I am, r-l’ .. il. U MACIUA.I,. January, IpUf. !