THE SABBATH THIRST.

NZ Truth, Issue 282, 19 November 1910, Page 8

THE SABBATH THIRST.

Must It Go Unquenched? Lawyer Haiilon Hits the Law Hard. Almost opposite the Northern Recreation (Ground thieref is a littlei softdrinks shop toept by Mrs; Louisa Bell — sometimes disrespectfully or affectionately called Ma Bell. Mrs Bell; sells tea, coffee and cocoa, and ill thevarious allegedly harmless wet things which have been invented to cope' ! with the thirsts of Prohibitionists ! and other people who become thirsty I' on Sunday and have failed to follow out Jock McGraw's practice of put- 1 ting . "something m. the • bottle for the morning." And the number of folks m the last-named category seams m Dun-edin very large ; for Mrs Bell has such a nunuber of visitors to her side-door on Sundays that the good ' people m the vicinity complained to the police. On October 30, ! Constable O'€pnaior, of the North Durieilin station, was detached to wa,tohv the shop, and he caught three lads named James Cunningham, John Steele and Walter Clefcund comdag out 'wf the place, "the lads admitting that they . Bad "-bought drinks—Cunnimgham -bad a -Boston cream and the; : others each had. 'A GLASs4)F HOP BEER. As a. result, Mcs Dell appeared be< fore Magistrate ! Widdowson on No* ! veanber 9, charged with having on a Sunday kept open, m view of a public place, a place for the purpose of', transacting business. Mr JH&nlcat appeared for Mrs Bell and pleaded notgjuilty. The defence admitted that selling ■ had been going r on on a large scale, the drinks being -sold m a back room, ■the- door of which opened into an al-ley-way facing king-street. Sub-Inspector Fhair, after outlining the facts of the case, said that it. might be contended that the offence wasn't committed m view of a public place, but he relied on the Amending Act of 1906, under which it is. not necessary for the offence to take place m view of a public place. •

The information was la-id- under section I 7 of the Police Ofiences Act, 1908. This section m the original Act of 1884 read as follows :— "Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding one pound w-bo on Sunday or m view of any public place trades, works at his trade or calling, deals, transacts business, or exposes goods for sale, or m viiew of a "public place keeps open any house, store, shop, bar or other -place for the purpose of trading, dealing, transacting business or exposing goods for sale . therein." This, boil-ad down, would seem 'to mean that there is a fine sticking out for (a-) anybody who trades on Sunday m a public place or m • view thereof or (b) beeps open a place. for the purpose off doing business io vdew of a public place. In 1906 •

AN ALL-WISE LEGISLATURE deoidied to cut out the words "m view. of a public place" before the words "keeps open.'- The effect of this simple operation isn't too clear. Jt seems probable, as Silly-Inspector Pjbair wished the S.M. to believe, tbat the Legislature desired to make tt an offence to Keep a place open for purposes of trade whether or not the place was m view of a. public place, thus making the offences (a) trading m a public place or m view thereof, and (b) keeping a place open for business.'in any position whatever . This would deal with people who sold goods at their back doors quite away from public view. ; But the section as it stands can quite reasonably be fiven an entirely different meaning, t may mean that every person is liable to a fine w*o m a public place, or m view tfoereof (a) actually trades or (*) keeps, a place open , for business. I/t was on this ambiguity that Mrs Bell's case was hinged.

Tihe Sub-Inspector asked leave to have the'wjowls "m view of a public place" struck out of tive information. Counsel said fee didn't mind— if the words were struck, out the information wouldn't disclose any offence. The words were struck out- <■

Mr 'Hanlon then asked for a.dismissal oh the ground . that. ■no offence was disclosed. The Amending Act of 1906 no longer existed as it had' been consolidated with other acts m 1908— *6r an endeavor had been made to do so — and the law as it ai»t present stood was contained m section 17 of the 1908 Act.

1 The S.M. said he agreed with counsel that no offence had toeen disclosed undetr the amended information. Even if the information had not been amended it had still to be proved that the offence was committed m a public place or m view thereof. jTbe information was therefore dismissed. ; • UNNECESSARY. AMBIGUITY: There seems every reason" why an endeavor should be made to make the section read clearly one way instead of allowing) it to be read clearly m two ways as at present. The two following readings are suggested :— ! • Every person is liable to a %c not exceeding one pound who on Sunday m or m view of any public place (-a) trades, works at his trad© j or calling, deals, transacts business or exposes goods for sale or (b) keeps open any bouse, etc. i That's the reading the S.M. likes, but'if' it's not the right one the otW reading is easily got as follows :— Every person is liable'to a fine who on Sunday (a) m or m view of any public place trades, etc., or (b) keeps open any house, etc. Which of these readings is to be accepted snouM be shown clearly. At present Mrs Bell "don't know where she are"— «ior for that matter do i the police. Mrs B-ell can't tell whe^ theror not the police will prosecute : again under the first reading ■; artdit the police do prosecute under the first reading they've got no guarantee' that Mr Hani on won't convince the j S.Mi- that the second reading is. the ! only reasonable one.