LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 446, 9 February 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

A few weeks ago the police made a visitation of several houses in town, and as the result of inpuiries prosecuted several women on charges of sly-grog selling. They were convicted and fined, with one exception. The police authorities have again laid information of alleged sly-grog selling against some of the parties previously before the Court, and another woman who was not prosecuted on the previous occasion. The cases came on for hearing on Monday last and were adjourned. Judging from the following, which is a record of a conviction in Wanganui, a prohibited person should be very ca -eful where he or she places her f ee t : _“A prohibited person was this morning charged with unlawfully entering the licensed premises of the Railway Hotel on 14th January. Mrs Hartshorn stated that on the Saturday evening in question the accused came to the hotel and was told by her to go away, as she knew he was a prohibited person. As he refused to go she sent for the police, and Sergeant Dwyer went down. Accused stated thaat he merely put one foot in the doorway, looking for someone he wanted to see. The magistrate entered a conviction, and ordered accused to come up for sentence when called on, at the same time remarking that he believed Mr and Mrs Hartshorn tried to conduct their hotel in accordance with the Licensing Act.” The following case, which we taki from a Melbourne contemporary, goes to show how to all intents and purposes a comparatively innocent person in the Trade may suffer for dereliction or of duty on the part of his or her confreres It is admitted in the case quoted that Mr Keating suffered for breaches of the law committed by others, and that, bar the one case when she made a mistake, her record was absolutely clean. Can a stronger argument be put forward for strict organisation on the part of the licensed victuallers ? And, furthermore, a system of espionage for their own protection ?: —Recently Mrs Keating, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Woodend (Victoria), was charged with Sunday trading during last September, In pleading guilty, Mr Hurry who appeared for defendant, said the drink had been obtained on misrepresentation by a man who said he had travelled that Sunday from Melbourne. Under the circumstances, he

asked, that the charge might be withdrawn, and a contribution placed in the poor box. Inspector Swale expressed regret that he could not withdraw. The licensee and her house bore an unblemished reputation, and he fully believed what had been said for the defence. In consequence, however, of a number, of anonymous letters having been sent to the Chief Commisioner of Police that Sunday trading was rampant in Woodend, he must press for a penalty and a conviction. The Bench thereupon fined Mrs Keating £2, with 19s 2d costs. This is rather hard on the licensee, who, according to the inspector, has to suffer for the sins of others. At the Gloucester County Court (England) recently, before His Honor Judge Ellicott and a jury, Alfred Henry Foakes, of the Fountain Inn, Severn Street, Worcester, sought to. recover from George Cummings, of the Spa Maltings, the sum of £5O, paid as a deposit on account of the Victoria Brewery, Cheltenham.. Mr R Hanngton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cranstoun represented the defendant. The case for plaintiff was that in July last he met at Worcester Mr Sidney Cummings, son of the defendant, who said he had been wanting to see him with reference to the Victoria Brewery, Cheltenham, which he should like plaintiff to take, as he believed it was a “ perfect little Klondike , He could have the premises on a fourteen years lease, free, with the exception of malt. An agreement was to be prepared, and plaintiff was to pay £5O deposit in respect to the transaction, but unfortunately he was taken ill, and on the Bth of August he sent his wife over to Cheltenham to pay the deposit and to bring back the ao-reement, which was to specify the terms agreed upon. Plaintiff’s wife asked for the promised agreement, but was told by Mr o. Cummings that it would not be ready for a day or two, but when it was it would be sent on to plaintiff. When, however, the document m question arrived, and was read over by plaintiff, he found the terms very different from that had been promised him verbally. 1 iamtitt I wrote for the return of his deposit, and saw 1 defendant at Gloucester, who wanted to deduct 1 £l2 8s 6d for valuation, and £'2 2s for solicitor s 1 fees which plaintiff would not consent to. He ! put’the matter into the hands of solicitors, and the present action was brought. George Gum--1 the defendant, said he never let houses on a’lease, and he did not authorise his son to make any special bargains with anybody. When plaintiff came to see him in Gloucester after the agreement had been altered, plaintiff said nothing to him about the agreement, but wanted

him (defendant) to release him from the bargain, as he said his uncle did not want him to leave Worcester. Witness reminded him of certain expenses he had been put to in having the house valued, etc., on h.is behalf, and said he would release him if he or witness could find another tenant. Had witness let the premises on a lease he should have charged plaintiff £l4O or £l5O premium. After a hearing, which lasted some fours hours, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. The above case is a peculiar one and worthy of notice, as showing how necessary it is in the Trade, as in other lines of business, to have everything in black and white.