A DANIEL COME TO JUDGMENT.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 91, 2 August 1895, Page 3

A DANIEL COME TO JUDGMENT.

In convicting a number of Christchurch publicans of Sunday trading, Mr tishop, S.M., addressed tbe following timely re*, marks to the amateur informers These prosecutions of publicans for what is known as Sunday trading are, I believe, unprecedented in their circumstances in the annals of our Courts. Almost invariably charges of this nature are preferred by the police, either of treir own motion or upon information supplied to them. In tbe cases before me the information in each instance lias been laid by a private individual without reference in any way to the police, who, apparently, do not enjoy the confidence of tbe parties concerned. The facts disclosed in the evidence are so extraordinary, and nave excited so much public interest and attention, that I feel compelled to refer to tliem at some length. In these cases there is the ethical or moral side, and the legal tide. With regard to the former, I wish to gi a" d agaist saying too much, for lam fully aware that however strong the opm

ions I might hold anl express they would still be only those of an 1 individual, aud I could scarcely claim , any special light, by virtue of my judicial position, to represent the Roman Magistrate of old and act as censor o. public Jinoral-. The conduct of the informants bps been, and is likely to be so fully discussed and canyassed, that probably it could be safely left to public

opinion to pass judgment upon. I feel compelled, however, to say something to the informants by way of remonstrance and friendly counsel, Were you young men of the common informer class, doing 1 this sort of work for fee or reward, I i ghoul 1 not think it necessary to say one ; word, for we quite know how to appraise those people at their proper But the circumstances heie are quite different It must, I think, be conceded that you young men thought you were doing good and righteous service, for otherwise you would surely never have willingly incurred such unenviable notoriety as has been yours over these cases. But it is just here that we join issue. Does not your con-

duct savour rather much of the doctrine that the “cud justifies the means” a doctrine so vicious, so pregnant of evil that its condemnation must he apparent to the most superficial mind ? You have shown yourselves to be well acquainted with the provisions of the Licencing Act, and you know full well that only travellers and lodgers can ho legally supplied with liquor on Sundays. Has it never struck you that by going into these houses as you did, you acted a lie and incited and assisted the licensees to break the law, even although you may have experienced no difficulty in procuring the sale of the 1 liquor yon asked for ? True, it may be, i that people are constantly doing the same 1 thing, hut this affords no excuse for yor. [ In my opinion, your conduct has been [ most reprehensible, and is certainly not the less so on account of this curious admixture of religion end deceit. Believe me, no cause, however good, can possibly be advanced by conduct of this sort. If I thought otherwise, I should have but a poor opinion of the morality of the community. Right thinking will at all times sympathise with those who desire to enforce the law, and to suppress Sunday trading by all honourable means, but what sympathy can you expect from methods such as yours ? I would sirongly urge you, and others who may desire to emulate you, to refrain in future from any such course of action as you have followed in this instance, as not conducing to sound morals,