LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 441, 5 January 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

A fine of £6, with costs, for a mere technical offence is rather severe, but, under the Licensing Act it is the minimum which can be imposed under certain conditions. At the Melbourne District Court a short time back, Josephine Lacaton, licensee of the Maison Doree; was charged with having the bar door open after hours. The evidence showed that at 11.45 two constables found the bar door open, and two barmaids behind the counter, taking stock, and arranging the bar for next morning. No trading was going on. Under the circumstances the Bench said they must impose a fine of £6, as it was the second charge of the nature which had been brought against Mrs Lacaton. The Maison Doree is a very popular restaurant, in Melbourne, and to a very great extent utilised for late supper parties. The decision as given above is specially severe, as very often many of the parties arrive after a late piece at the theatre, and are not finished until nearly 12 o’clock. Of course the cleaning up must be attended to before the servants leave.

The following precedent, which has been established in Victoria, is worthy of careful consideration by licensed victuallers, not only in Australia but in New Zealand, as well:—Mr Justice A’Beckett, in Melbourne last month, on appeal, reversed the decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Court in the case of the Moonee Valley Hotel, North. Melbourne. On the sth inst. the licensing court granted a transfer of the license of the Moonee Valley Hotel, North Melbourne, from Miss Maud Lobb to Mrs Annie Lobb. Messrs E. Latham and Sons also applied at the same time that the license might be transferred to Henry S. Conway, and not to Mrs Lobb. They did this in virtue of a bill of sale over the license, and goods held by them from Miss Lobb, who had also appointed them her attorneys to apply on her behalf for transfer of the license. Messrs Latham appealed against the decision of the Licensing Court transferring the license to Mrs Lobb. Mr Justice A’Beckett has decided in Latham’s favor, and ordered that the license should be transferred to Conway, with costs against Miss Lobb.

Th connection with the opposition of renewal of licenses in Australia by the police on the ground of habitual Sunday trading the Metropolitan Licensing Court recently laid down a principle which must be recognised as fair and just. In a case in which the police brought evidence to show that Sunday trading was systematically carried on, but at the same time admitted that the house was well conducted on week days, Judge Molesworth said the decision in Nolan’s case showed that habitual Sunday trading was a ground on which the Court might refuse to grant a renewal of a license. In this case there was no imputation against the character of the licensee, and speaking for himself, and believing that she had carried on Sunday trading, he considered it would have been better to have admitted it, and not to have sought to have branded the police as untrue witnesses. But, inasmuch as the charges made were easily capable of being dealt with in the ordinary way by the magistrates, the Court would grant the application for a renewal. The inspector might take the hint, he added, and withdraw any cases similar to this, where the houses were usually well conducted, and where any breaches of the act complained against could be dealt with' by the magistrates in the ordinary way.

A rather amusing case came before the Bo w County Court a short time back, in which the defendant had the best of it. Messrs Pattison, the well-known whisky merchants, sought to recover £2 Bs, the value of a case of whisky, fromDonald Anderson, a stevedore, of East Ham. The defendant went into the box and admitted having the whisky. His Honor—Why don’t you pay for it then ? The Defendant—That’s just the point. It came to my house, but I never ordered it. His Honor—How was that ? The Defendant —It was like this. Ido a lot of work for big people in the shipbuilding line, and they often say, “Knock this job off sharp and I’ll send you a present, and that’s where I thoch’t the whisky came from.” (Laughter). Jhe plaintiff’s solicitor admitted that the whisky had been sent in error to the defendant. His Honor —Then you can’t make him pay for it. Where is the whisky now ? The Defendant —It’s not safe to trust a Scotchman with whisky. I’ve drunk two bottles and given five away. (Laughter). His Honor—You must return the remaining five; if you had drunk them also you wouldn’t have had to return them. The Defendant - I am very sorry, but it is too late now. (Laughter). His Honor—l am afraid so. The Defendant—They can come and fetch them. (Laughter). I think I ought to have a “bit” for my trouble. (Laughter). His Honor—Yes, they must send for the whisky, and I allow you ss. The defendant left the witness-box smiling broadly, and another party, apparently connected with the plaintiff’s firm, hurried out of court to secure the remaining bottles of whisky.

It does not always prove an advantage for a licensed victualler to move to more accommodating premises, at least, unless he, previous to shifting, makes arrangements with the representatives of the law to carry his license with him. The gentleman referred to below, evidently thought he could afford better accommodation to his guests by moving a few doors from his original stand. Unfortunately, he neglected the necessary legal preliminaries, and when he started to sell, found that his privilege was lost, whereas, the wily opposition wine merchant, by putting in an application for the abandoned license, just beat his opponent on the post, and scooped the pool. The following are the particulars as given in a contemporary: —‘, Some twelve months ago Mr J. H. Farrow was granted a wine license for premises situate at 86 Pakington Street, Geelong West (Victoria). ■After doing business there for 9 months, he shifted to No. 78 Pakington Street, four doors away. Then he found his license was useless to him, and he could not sell wine. At the annual licensing court he applied for a wine license for the new premises. At the same time a Mr Halpin applied for the renewal of Farrow’s old. lapsed license for the premises at 86 Pakington Street, After a long hearing, Farrow’s application was refused, and Halpin s granted.” u

The following most peculiar case recently occurred in Melbourne, and as it affects a man once convicted of a felony in New Zealand it is naturally interesting reading:—At the annual sitting of the Metropolitan Licensing Court in Melbourne, Frederick Wain applied for a transfer of the license of the Harmston Hotel, Carlton, from Thomas F. Hill to himself. Mr Field Barrett (instructed by Mr Lowe) appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Inspector Waters, on behalf of the police, to oppose the application. The ground of the objection was that Wain and his wife had been convicted of the manslaughter of their child in New Zealand in 1883, and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. It was pointed out on behalf of Wain that he had been released after serving four years of his sentence, and that since 1888, when he came to Victoria, he had lived such an exemplary life that he was able to come into court with certificates of character from a justice of the peace and other prominent citizens. Mr Barrett said it was not a question of Wain having been convicted of dishonesty or brutality, but simply of having been convicted of being criminally liable for the criminal negligence of someone else. Judge

Molesworth said the fact that the judge who tried the case sentenced him to seven years must be taken as an indication to the Bench. Section 139 of the Act says that if a man is convicted of a felony he forfeits his license. Mr Barrett re- \ marked that was after he became a licensee. This man never had been a licensee, and his trouble occurred fifteen years ago. It would be a cruel exercise of the Bench’s discretion to debar this man under the circumstances from earning an honest living in the way he now proposed to do. Judge Molesworth said the Bench must act upon a principle, and, although it seemed harsh, they must refuse the application. Mr Barrett asked for time to consider whether he would accept a refusal or whether he would withdraw the application. The request was granted.