PROHIBITION FANATICS ON THE WARPATH.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VIII, Issue 414, 30 June 1898, Page 16

PROHIBITION FANATICS ON THE WARPATH.

AU through its sittings the prohibition party have kept the Police Commission busy investigating charges against the police, with the view, principally, of harassing the licensed victuallers’ trade. All this has been done at the expense of the country with practically no beneficial results, as most of the allegations made have been proved to be the result of the inflated imagination of fanatics. When sitting at Timaru, a clergyman in holy guise came before the Commission, and charged the police with neglecting their duty by permitting a publican to use two public bars. The police denied the charge whereupon the man in holy orders took upon himself the role of informer, and, skipping across the street, he entered a back bar of the hotel in question and purchased a flask of whiskey, with which he returned and flourished in front of the Commission as an evidence of the perfidy of the police and the sinfulness of the publican. The result was the old story. The police were made the tools of the fanatics, and the publican was dragged into the Court at the expense of the country for keeping two bars, but the Magistrate held that the bar, which was the subject of the action, was not a bar within the meaning of the clause of the Act, which reads —Public bar’ or ‘ bars ’ moans and includes any room, passage, or lobby in any licensed premises open immediately to any street, highway, public place, or public thoroughfare, wherein the public may enter and purchase liquors.” Against this decision the prohibitionists appealed, and as the case is one of interest to the trade we clip the report from the Timarii tieraid of June 17th:—

■ Police v. Cronin, Mr White for appellant, Mr Raymond for respondent, —appeal agaist a recent decision of Mr C. A. Wray, Stipendiary Magistrate, on a prosecution of Timothy Cronin, as licensee of the Criterion Hotel, for having a second or unauthorised bar.

Mr White put in the plan of the front of the Criterion Hotel, showing position of the alleged , “ public bar,” approached by a crooked passage up some steps within the passage, through a folding-door, and finally through an arched opening. The Magistrate decided that the bar was not a public bar according to the interpret aclause of the licensing Act, 1881, because it did not “ open immediately on ” the street. Mr White submitted that the decision was wrong. According to the evidence the folding doors at the time of the alleged offence were fastened back, and the bar was merely a continuation of the passage from the street. There was no obstacle whatever in the way of anyone reachthe bar from the street, the doors being wide open. His Honor: Is it a bar then when the door is open, not a bar when the door is shut ? Mr White: Probably. But on this occasion the door was open. His Honor: Suppose the passage was 190 ft. long, and the door into a bar at the end of it was open, would you say that such a bar opened immediately on the street ?• If the door was shut it would be - all right ? Mr White': Whether that is so or not, the doors being open and kept open, and th ere being nothing to prevent a person entering a room, then it opens immediately on the street. His Honor: I have a room at the Grosvenor Hotel upstairs' If I leave the door into the passage open, then my door opens immediately on the street ? Mr White . No. That is upstairs. That does not open immediately on the street. His Honor : Why not ? Does the fact of part of the passage being vertical make any difference ? . Mr White: You have to go through the house to get to it. Here the passage leads to nowhere except this bar. His Honor: How far would you have to go back? I want to know how far your argument carries you.

Mr White submitted that, the folding doors being open, the whole place was open immediately to the street. His Honor (Mr Justice Denniston) said he did not think he need trouble Mr Raymond to reply. It was not a matter that presented any difficulty at all A “bar or public bar” must “open immediately on ” any public street, etc. The definition was as plain as it could be. It appeared that in this case the place was entered by a lobby, up some steps (here they had “ upstairs”) in the lobby, through a door into a continuation of the passage, and from this continuation through an open way into the bar. As he understood Mr White's contention, this was a bar opening immediately on the street when the door was open, and not a bar when the door was closed. There might be some difficulty if the

definition said “open to any street,” but tainly there was no difficulty about “ open iinmediately.” The only meaning of that was that an«y person could step immediately, directly, into the bar from the street, without going through ftny intermediate room or passage or anything of the sort. This was not a public bar; it did uot “ open immediately ”on any street. The appeal would be dismissed. Mr Raymond asked for costs. Mr White said there was no provision for costs. , _ . . J His Honor said he would give costs in this case if he could, as a case entirely withoat merit. He would give seven guineas costs. t : | Mr White wished to say that he received, iu- ] structions to prosecute this appeal, and he had ■ given no opinion whatever upon it.” From the above it would appear that even the paid advocate, Mr White, was ashamed of appeal, but what about the white. ehok-ared geo- -- tieman and what price the flask of whiskey ?