The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1895. To-Day.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5272, 31 May 1895, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1895. To-Day.

the forma! ion of a Trade Union of orchest ral players, and it is quite on the cards may fae BOmfl curiouß developmflntr , menc-. The Sydney police have "come a crop- & j^^ regretted. One of the greatesb curseß in connection with the liquor traffic is the f aC fc that there are numbers of people who tare unprircipled enough to Bell concoct j ODS that are maddening in their 'properties, arid the Sydney market baa • apparen tly been, deluged with BUCb yil»PP ar<s , « « V " ■ « iU' ' lainoui SMlff, Becoming aware of this, police tegan a vigorous campaign against the sellera of'all Sortß of spirituous I b f, „ , . ( decoctiona purporting to be spirits, but their righteous raid has been suddenly brought to an end. A man named Crow was proceeded against for selling adulterated brandy, the charge was proved, and he was fined .£lO. But Mr Crow appealed, on the ground that the fact of a police inspector going to a licensed house and taking therefrom liquor and paying for it, did not constitute a sale within the meaning of the Act. A full court sat to adjudicate, and the Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said " the pcint was whether the magistrate in having held that the defendant was guilty at the offence of selling liquor not of the naturo or quality of that demanded by the purchaser was right in holding that the evidence disclosed a sale within ths meaning of the sth section of Act 42 "Victoria, No. 14. He was of opinion that the evidence did not disclose a s&le within the meaning /of the clause. Mr Inspector Lenthall, in purchasing the liquor, proceeded under the provitions of Section 19 of Act 45 Victoria, JSo. 14. That section enabled him to go into a licensed house during business hours, and to demand, select and obtain samples of liquor for analysis. He obtained a sample of brandy, put it in afla9k, sealed it, and paid 23 for it. The question was whether that transaction was a sale within the meaning of the sth clause of the Act already mentioned. He held it was not. If the Legislature had intended that the transaction shduld constitute a sale it would have so defined it. In this case the default was with the Legislature in not defining a sale under the Act as defined in England." More's the pity, we say. Mr Crow and his confreres will, no doubt, indulge in "crowing," but if their triumph is not short-lived, the Legislature will be disgraced.

Two «5 V nder oases that have been occupying . j attention of English judges, present a similar aßpect, and one that is not of an ordinary character. Whilst they are of interest to the general public, they should prove specially so to such total abstinence agitatom ns permit zeal to out-run-discretion, and are peculiarly offensive at times in their utterances with regard to persons holding opposing views. One of the cases in question was dealt with by Mr Justice Hawkins and a jury, the licensee of a- Portsmouth hotel proceeding against the Bey . Charles Joseph, a Baptist minister. Certain charges had been made against the publican and dismissed by the magistrates. The minister' shortly afterwards: made, a apeech at a temperance meeting, in the course of which he declared that the publican "ought to have been convicted," snd added, " I wish to brand the trade with the infamy and the curse which belong to it, until a man who dared ! to keep apublichouse would not dare to put his head into respectable company." This was pretty tall talk,' but the poison was not satisfied. He' printed his fiery speech in a i newspaper, the L Ghristian Citizen, published by him, and so deliberately gave publication to what might perhaps otherwise have been leniently regarded as due to the intoxication of speech. A verdict for £75, with coats, may perhaps induce ■the reverend gentleman to.be a' little more careful in future for the reputation, of other people. -. .-

.In the parallel case referred to, the defendant was the Eev John Wakefield, who recently succeeded the present Bishop of Norwich- as vicar oE St Margaret's, Anfield, Liverpool. , la this instance the plaintiffs were the members of the Junior Beform Club, who complained of having been grossly slandered. Perhapß the views of tha club' members on political matters were antagonistic to those of the vicar ; but, at any rate, ho worked himself • into an excited slate, and in the course of a sermon denounced the club as a gambling bell, as a place for the encouragement of excessive drinking, and as a rendezvous for women of ill-fame. What made matters worse, was that the charitably-minded cleric first attempted to deny that he had used the language imputed to him ; next, that the words used did cot bear the construction placed upon them, and lastly, that a parson in his pulpit was a privileged person in a privileged place, and so could? not be successfully proceeded against. This sort of " stuffing " was speedily knocked out of the defendant, against whom a verdict was given ; and . then the plaintiffs heaped coals ■of fire on bis head by electing to accept an ample apology instead of a monetary solace.

Musicians' fees form the subject of a brief letter in the columns of our morning contemporary. The writer says that the ordinary price for musicians is .£1 per head for bands of three or more, but a tender for a ball to be given by one of the friendly societies in Christchurch at £4 for nine men including finding piano, was offered, and, of course, accepted. He not unnaturally feels that cutting competition of this sort in connection with music is to be deplored, and suggests that musical men would do well to meet and determine a fixed scale of charges. It curiously happens that the orchestral performers in London, whose number is iegion, are just now groaning beneath their weight of " the last straw " of the load of grievanoes, and the last straw is this :—

An important company has asked its orchestral player 3 to fiign a contract in which are set forth the following conditions: — The duties are to consist of two performances in a grand spectacle, and two concerts daily, between 12.30 p.m. and night. The engagement is for twenty weeks, the mnsician being bound to go on for another twelve months if required. Should, however, the company terminate, he iB bound to accept one week's salary as full damages. He must be moral, accept no other engagement, and furnish his own instrument, which is to be firßt-claaß. As regards fines, the minimum is 25s 6d, and. the maximum £5 10a daily, plus the cost of loat or damaged dresßes. If he ia not at his post by or before the opening of the doers to the public, a deduction of from 2a to 10a will be made. Similar sums are charged unless he is dreßsed at least fifteen minutes before the performance. If he dares to go in by the front entrance, if ho rafileo or Bells anything, if he fails to exert himself to the best of his ability, or if he indulges in "skylarking," if he ia found on or near the stage, unless immediately connected with the ecene in which he is required, a fine of from 2a 6d to 5s will be imposed.

Now the full significance of these cast iron conditions does nofc become apparent until it ia stated that the woelcly salary offered is the magnificent sum of £1 16 a. What the aotual amount receivable would be after a smart application of the fines schedule offers a nice little problem for solution. The outcome of the matter is