UNFAIR TREATMENT,

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 911, 13 June 1896, Page 2

UNFAIR TREATMENT,

The Thames Incensing Bench and Mr

Stehr,

Theke was something grossly unfair and un-English in the treatment of Mr Stehr, of the Star and Garter Hotel, Coroinandel, by the Licensing Bench of his district the other day. An adverse report had been made upon Mr Stehr's house by Constable Donovan, and on this ground the license was being objected to. But, on the other hand, somewhere about twenty men, of good standing, who had stayed in the house at one time or another, had come from Auckland and other places to refute the police charges and testify to the fair management of the house. Moreover, Mr Stehr had recently gone to considerable expense in building a new and commodious house, which is far and away the best hotel building in the district.

It happened, however, that legal objection was made to the status of Constable Donovan, as a consequence of which the hearing of the objection against the license could not be proceeded with. Whereupon, the committee granted the license and cautioned Mr Stehr upon the manner in which Ins house icas being con ducted. Is it possible to conceive anything more unfair or un-English than this ? It

is a sonnd axiom of British law that a man must be considered innocent until he is proved to be guilty. Bat there was neither law nor justice in this decision. Why should this Licensing Court condemn Mr Stehr or anyone else for an offence that had not been proved against him ? There was, it is true, the report of Constable Donovan against him. But there was also the evidence of twenty intelligent and independent witnesses who had no interests whatever to serve on the other side. And, again, there was the fact that Stehr's is the newest and most modern house in the district, while some of the other houses so favourably reported upon are little better than mere drinking bars.

It was argued by one zealous Prohibitionist on the Bench that when the committee sent policemen to report on houses they Bhould back them up, and accept their reports without question. Snrely, this is a most dangerous doctrine to preach. And if we were to accept it without question, we would require to go only one step further and admit the infallibility of policemen. Then there would be no further need for courts of justice and trials. The same purpose would be served by a force of these immaculate policemen, who would spy out the wrong doing in the community, while a magistrate, sitting quietly by his office fire, would apportion the punishments upon the c* parte statements of the police officers. This is how some of our well-meaning but over-zealous Prohibitionist friends would administer the licensing law.

lint it is all grossly wrong and nnfair. We know Constable Donovan as an efficient and conscientious police officer, and we give him credit for the best motives and intentions. Bnt he is only a man after all, and all men are more or less creatures of prejudice. It is quite possible that Constable Donovan is prejudiced against Mr Stehr. But whether he is or he is not, it is manifestly unjust to accept a report such as the one in question until its truth or otherwise has been tested in open court. No evidence whatever was taten. Mr Stehr and his witnesses were prepared on oath to say that the charges made by the constable were untrue. And yet, though the accused man had no opportunity of opening his mouth, and not one of his witnesses could speak a word, the Bench endorsed the ex parte statement of the constable and censured Mr Stehr for the manner in which he had been conducting his house. For this is what it all amounts to.

Perhaps, though, the case will serve a useful purpose in so far that it will demonstrate conclusively to the Thames people the unfairness and unwisdom of appointing to a judicial position men whose minds are unduly swayed to one side or the other The law prevents the appointment of persons engaged in the liquor trade to the licensing bench. In common justice it should go further and veto men of extreme Prohibition views. For, after all, a licensing court should be as much a court of justice as any other court in the land. It is not there but rather at the licensing poll, that the question of Prohibition should be decided. When men ascend the licensing bench.they should leave their prejudices behind them, and take their seats upon it with a determination to administer the law as they find it. The publican is heavily enough handicapped as it is, and having paid his enormous licensing fee, he is entitled to protection so long as he keeps within the four corners of the law. Also, it is no part of the duty of a licensing commission to establish new laws to further the advance ' ment of Prohibition or any other cause of

reform,