LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 439, 22 December 1898, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

When the appeal case against the convictions for sly-grog selling at Clinton and Balclutha were called on at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, the Crown Solicitor said that he had on the previous day received intimation of the discontinuance of the appeals. Seven guineas costs were given against ea«h appellant. If the decision given against an Invercargill publican a few weeks ago is to be carried out in spirit in future decisions, it will be inadvisable even to serve a cup of tea or a glass of milk after closing hours. It seems.that Mr Blackham, hotelkeeper, served some guests with cider after closing time, and was charged with selling beer after hours. The defence was that the liquid consumed was cider, and as counsel refused to agree to the information being amended the case was dismissed. A fresh charge of selling cider, however, was immediately laid, and the defendant was fined £2 and costs, and his license endorsed. Wherefore, In Invercargill, it would be dangerous to sell a man even a cup of salts and senna after eleven o’clock. It will be remembered in connection with the Exhibition bar case that Mr Brabant, the chairman of the Licensing Committee, promised to give his written judgment on Tuesday morning. This would have enabled Mr Nicholson to bring it before the Supreme Court and gave the matter tested in Chambers. Mr Nicholson applied for the decision on Tuesday, but was put off. He applied again in the afternoon, but was kept waiting until five minutes after three, when the written decision was handed to him. Of course this was just five minutes too late to bring it into the Supreme Court before next February, when naturally the decision will be of no practical use, except as a precedent in case we have another Exhibition. Now Mr Brabant knew what the written decision was for, as he had been officially advised at the meeting, and his action in delaying its delivery until it was too late to be of service, after having promised to have it finished in time, admits of but two conclusions. Either he did it to burke inquiry, or he was afraid to have his decision reviewed in the Supreme Court. In either case his attitude is hardly an enviable one.

At last we know what the lay members of the Licensing Cammittee are really elected for. They are intended to act as a high-class audience, critical possibly, but very attentive, while the Chairman discourses on matters connected with the Trade, educates them on legal points, and if he is in a particularly good humor perhaps explains to them why he has decided that certain things should be done. The restriction of silence having been removed, they next adopt the attitude of a Greek chorus, and re-echo and endorse the sentiments and decisions he has arrived at. Occasionally, to vary the monotony, one or two, or possibly four, as an “ expression of opinion ” are allowed to say a few words, and even vote against the Chairman’s dictum, but this exercise, which is seldom indulged in, is mere airy persiflage, as what the Chairman says, in the end, always “ goes.” It is a very pretty little Kindergarten kind of arrangement, and would look very nice and amusing on the stage, but in hard, practical business life proceedings of so farcical nature are apt to be irritating, and electors would like to know the meaning of the burlesque.

We give below the full -verdict of the jury in the inquest on the Royal Oak fire in Wellington ; “ We are of opinion that Greer and Blandford met their death by suffocation by smoke which [was caused by the false sense of security produced by the fact that they were some distance away from the scene of the fire in a brick building, and they failed to expedite its exit, and were overtaken by the smoke that rapidiy accumulated after they were timely warned of their danger. We are of opinion that an error pf judgment was made in not making careful search of the new wing by the fire brigade, but this was partly due to the statements made by persons who had escaped, from the building, that all were out safely, and it is regrettable that proper ladder appliances were not brought to the fire at an earlier, period. After analysing the exidence we are of opinion an error was made by the brigade in not concentrating their efforts more fully at the new wing at an earlier period of the fire. Had they done this the probabilities are that that portion of the building might have been saved. The jury consider that the fire originated in the kitchen, but there is no clear evidence to show how it occurred. We think that the Licensing Committee, or some respodsible body, should take into consideration the whole question of suitable fire escapes and alarms for hotels, public buildings, and boarding-houses, and for this purpose experts should be consulted.. We are of opinion that the appliances of the brigade are inadequate; that there was not sufficient permanent men; and that the brigade generally requires reorganisation and reconstruction. We desire to express our condolence with the relatives of the deceased persons, who met their death in the fire, and also with Mr Gilmer, at the loss of his house, which was so well conducted, and we believe that everything was done by, him and his staff to save the lives of the inmates.”