ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 3274, 13 December 1916, Page 39

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

VALIDITY UPHELD. AUCKLAND, December 7. The Supreme Court heard a motion today to determine the validity of the regulation providing for the disqualification trom employment in a similar capacity tor a period oi six montlis ot any bar attendant convicted ot a breach of tho anti-shouting regulations. Alter argument Mr Justice Hosking upheld the clause and declined to declare it ultra vires. An originating summons was brought by Winifred Hackett, a barmaid, against Sergeant Sander, of the police, and the Solici-tor-general, asking that the regulation be declared ultra vires. 'A he plaintiff had been charged m the Magistrate's Court with breaches of the regulations, but no decision was given pending the testing of the penalty clause. Mr Singer, for the plaintiff, relied on the argument that while the Governoi-in-Coun-cil had power to frame war regulations he had no power to inflict punishment. Mr Tole, for tho respondents, submitted that disqualification was not part of the penalty nor even part of the conviction. It might have the effect of being a sort of punishment, but he contended that it was just a precautionary measure, and simply followed as a consequence of a breach. The Licensing Act contained similar provisions. His Honor, in giving judgment, said disqualification was not an additional penalty but rather the disqualification of a certain class of persons, the whole of which class might have been disqualified from following their particular pursuit if the Governor-in-Council was of opinion that such a step was necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or in the interests of the dominion, or was for the effective conduct of the military and naval operations of the country. The framing of the regulations was left absolutely to the Govcrnor-in-Council, and it was not for tho court to inquire into the propriety of the regulations. Leave to appeal was given.