VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VIII, Issue 380, 4 November 1897, Page 17

VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE.

Tilt: case, the Police v. Joseph Cody, licensee of the Criterion Hotel, heard be-

fore the Wanganui Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr Northcroft), demonstrates the * absurdity and positive injustice of the provisions of the Act relative to the sale of liquor to prohibited persons. In this ■case it was shown that liquor, in the ordinary way of trade, was sold to a prohibited person, but it was just as clearly demonstrated that the prohibited person was unknown to either the defendant or his barmaid. The defendant had no intention of violating the law, but the precious provisions of the Act under which he was summoned in effect made him a law-breaker against his inclination. We have generally been led to consider that the nature of a man’s intent is the essence of his offence, but here we find an upright tradesman, whose only desire is to conduct his business honestly, made a law-breaker by a provision of the law, the operation of which is contrary to the principles of British justice, because it is unjust, vexatious, and oppressive. Onlyone section of the community, the fanatical prohibitionists, can possibly approve of such a principle and glory in the fact that a positively innocent man is made to appear a law-breaker. That he was to all intents innocent was proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, but that functionary’s verdict brings to our mind words attributed to a celebrated Victorian magistrate, “Bendigo Mac.” The learned counsel engaged in a case heard by him pleaded for justice, whereat the magistrate ejaculated, “Justice! I would beg - to remind you, sir, that I am here to administer the law, not justice;” Mr Northcroft’s words were not so severely ' straight, but they meant very much the same. It was no defence, he said, to prove that a licensee did not know that the man served with liquor was a prohibited person, and his subsequent remarks, although perhaps not made with that intention, very conclusively demonstrated the monstrous nature of the law, and echoed the words of “ Bendigo Mae ” as to the duty of a magistrate. “The law,” said Mr Northcroft, “ may no doubt operate somewhat harshly against licensees who act honestly and in ignorance of the fact that the person supplied is prohibited, but if the Legislature has declared that a guilty knowledge on the part of the licensee is not necessary effect must be given to the law. It is the duty of the magistrate to administer the law, not to make it. Whatever conscientious objections they may entertain to the law itself, or however great the hardships they may forsee may arise from its application in. a particular case, so far as he was concerned he must leave the rectification of the evil, if there be an evil, to the Legislature. In the present case all the necessary ingredients to constitute the legal offence are present, but as I am satisfied that there was no intentional breach of the law, I will only inflict a nominal fine of one shilling and costs, eleven shillings.” This may be the law, but truly it is not justice, and the case is one that the attention of our legislators may be directed to as an evidence of their handiwork. They surely cannot be proud of it.