MR HAWKINS'S DECISION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2317, 28 July 1898, Page 15

MR HAWKINS'S DECISION.

In giving Lis decision on Wednesday, 20oh, &l Tapanui in the case ia which W. Quia v/as charged with selling Tqnor ab an suction sale at Waikoikoi, Mr Hawkins, S.M., said : I thick ia this case that tho sale of tha liquor in question was made by tbe defendant. I am sure that he himself had no doubt on this point, because he aeked the purchasers to cancel the sale. Ha admitted, in fact, that the sale was made when the hammei- fell ; the goods we re delivered in both cases— in the case of Brook [,-y himself, and iv the ca?e of Mabhiesoa by rc'nrning them to the store for him. 16 was not a conditional sale, but an absolute sale. The money was nob paid only because the purchasers ab Ihe defendant* requast agier.d to annul the sale. The sale' is a breach of the provisions of •'The Licensing Act, 1881." I cannot hold that the defendant is nob liable to a penalty for the breech. Bub lam entirely satisfied that he his really orjly come within the letter of the lav?. I am satisfied that he bad no intention of breaking the law, and that it was an acfc thoughtlessly done 5n the'rusb, as he saye, of a heavy falo. lam safijfkd that he had no hand whafcevtr iv parcelling out or lotting theee particular goods as they were pub out at the store window ; thab he had previously to the sale lolled these liquors in -parcels of over Gve gallons in conformity with the law, and was nob aware that his arrangement had b?cn up* set. I therefore convict sad fine him in a « nominal f enalty of 1«. In the course of the evidence it wss shown that tho constable had stood by and taken notes of the sale in small parcels of the liquor, and thab the defendant had subsequently remonstrated with him for not having called his attention to the fact thafe the two mixed lot 3 offered for sale contained among the other things liquors in quantities that made tbe sale illegal. I myself think that, conisidering all the circumstances of the case, ib would have been proper for the constable to have taken the latter course— but I do not blame him for what is ab most an error cf judgment. I (hiuk where a person is openly — without the leasb attempt ab concealment or evasion where circumstances point to ignorance or iuadverbence — doing or about; to do an acb which is nob in itself, criminal or malum in se, bub which will render him subject to a penalty under some one or other of these legislative nets, which are every year beiDg woven aboub us in the interests or supposed interests of our complicated- civilisation and social acd democratic progress, it would be reasonable, whore it is possible, to give him a caution rather than to stand by and wait till he had completed the offence aud then bring him before a criminal court. 1 suppose that if anyone could realise the extraordinary number of acta or neglects to act for which persons can be summoned before a justice in his criminal jurisdiction under tha previsions of some acb, by-law, or regulation, ha would wonder that any person of the age oE 30 bad not been during his short life subjected to ab least -some ecora of penal prosecutions. The cause of escape is partly to be found in the most notable respeob for- tho law amongst all classes- in this colony not less from the general forbearance from pHtting the laws and by-laws in force against all but p3rsi3tent offenders. Ib is the pride of most, and especia'ly I have found it among those of the working class, thafc they have never been before a court of criminal justice, and in my judgment no one should lightly ba brought before such a courb. It is » pride feat all should highly respect and encourage, aud which ib is even dangerous to wear down. I hold that all constables should be carefully instructed on this point, thab wherever a warning can be reasonably believed to be sufficient, wherever a prosecution can reasonably be avoided in such matters, the warning should be given and the prosecution avoided. No doubt much must always be left to the good sense and discretion of the constable. No hard and fast rule can ba adopted, but the principle fhculd be kept in view. In the present case the evidence indicates that the constable waß* suffering from the obsession of a malign influence — to have been impressed with tho idea thab because this is a prohibition dißtricb ib was incumbent upon him to rigorously prosecute the very least breach of the licensing law, even contrary to his better judgment;. Thab is the natural and logical outcome cf the persistent resort to pjlitical agifeation, to demands for cpeeial. enures of inquiry, and to repealed deputations to the members* of tha Government by a well-meaniug bat fanatical organisation, whose zeal has long abandoned all discretion, and who in blind pursuit cf their one idea are now seeking to coerce the Government to dictate to the magistrates, to intimidate the police, and to convert tho whole executive of justice into mere servants of their organisation to enforce their opinions. I am proud to count myaelf' a member of a magistracy who, conscious of the rectitude oi" their own minds, can regard unmoved tho attacks of theaewell-meaning zealots, and who, strong on the stable base of a sound and deliberate judgment, refuse to be turned one hair's breadth lo the right or ltfb from the course of equal justice; and who, conscious of their high responsibility to the State, rcuititain against Ihs pressure of all influences whatever a lof hy and resolute indepaudance.