LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 449, 2 March 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

The recent complaints against Sunday trading in Palmerston Noith have evidently some basis of fact to go on Mr E. Fitzgerald, licensee of the Central Hotel, was a few days ago fined £5 and costs for Sunday’ trading, and a conviction was ordered to be endorsed on his license.) We have a lot of similar cases to the one described below occurring in New Zealand from time to time, and the general opinion here is that an example should be made of offenders. The defendant referred to got off very easily, and the leniency of the English judge should not be taken as a precedent. At Southampton recently David Blunnen was summoned for having been disorderly and refusing to quit the Railway Hotel, Shilling, when requested to do so by Mr John Motyer, the landlord, and also for assaulting him. Defendant pleaded guilty, and it appeared that he went to complainant’s house, and in consequence of his condition he was refused to be served. He was ejected five times, and then struck the complainant with his fist, and threw glasses about. Defendant had been before the Court previously, and he was now ordered to pay a tine of os, and costs 7s, with the alternative of seven days’ imprisonment for the first offence, and for the second he was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonmeat without the option of paying a fine. The following case of justices taking too much upon themselves is unfortunately only too common in dealing with Trade matters: —A statement was made recently by the licensing justices for Brighton (England) relative to plans for alterations to licensed houses submitted to them at the brewster sessions. Sir John Blaker, speaking with reference to the Criterion Restaurant, AVest Street,- said that the justices had no objection to the rebuilding of the premises ; but they desired to remind the owner that the license was granted simply for refreshment to be supplied to persons who dined there. From the nature of the suggested alterations, however* they thought that it might be in the mind of the owner to sell liquors in other ways. The police would keep a sharp look out, and if this was found to be the case the justices would probably be of opinion that at the next sessions the license would not be renewed. Mr H. T. Gates, who appeared for the owner of the restaurant, said that the duty had been paid on a full public house license there for years. Sir John replied that the justices had no knowledge of that, and added that they would have no more public houses in West Street. The justices ought not to prejudge cases in this way. It did not show a judicial mind, but rather an attempt to dictate where they had no right to do so. It is pleasing to see over zealonusness on the part of the police magisterially rebuked at times, and the following case from London will prove interesting :—At the Richmond Borough Sessions recently William Smith, a bricklayer, of 5, St. Margaret’s Grove, Twickenham, was charged with being found on licensed premises at Richmond at 12.25 p.m. on Christmas Day, and with giving false evidence with respect to his place of abode the night before. Inspector Dowty said about midday on Christmas Day he went into the house and saw the prisoner. He asked him where he slept the night before, and prisonar answered “Hounslow,” but said he lived usually at St. Margaret’s. He took him to the police station, and it was found that the statements were false, and that he slept about a mile from the public house he was found in. Sir James Szlumper said to the inspector: It seems to me certainly a very unfair measure to take, when you have verified the man’s address, to keep him in prison the whole of the afternoon and the night until midday the next day. You had his name and address, and would have had no trouble in finding him. You could have summoned him. Again I say this not an offence to be dealt with in so severe a manner. Considering the fact that you have been locked up for twenty-four hours the Bench will discharge you.

A case of selling liquors during prohibited hours, which was recently tried in England, will prove of interest to our readers here: — Joseph William Thompson, of the Fox and Hounds, Bishopsgate, Reading, was charged with selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, and Thomas Lane and Richard Lugg were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours on the same date. Lugg was not able to attend, as he was undergoing an operation in a London hospital. P.C. Finch said that on the date in question he was on duty outside the Fox and Hounds. At 11 o’clock he heard someone moving about at the back. He saw the potman at the gates, and asked him what he was doing there at that time. He replied, “ Having a look round.” He went in by the back door, and saw Mrs Thompson, the landlady. Witness asked if Mr Thompson was in. and she replied, “ No, he is out.” He saw Lane and Lugg with hot spirits,

and asked Lugg whose drinks they were.” He said, “ I don’t know ; they don’t belong to me.” Mrs Thompson, however, said they belonged to Lane and Lugg. Witness asked them what excuse they had for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. They said,. “ Oh, no excuse, we are only sitting* here until the landlord comes home.” Mrs Thompson said, “Mr Thompson has gone to the Barley Mow to a presentation,” The Bench said that after due consideration, of the evidence in the case, they considered there was not sufficient to prove that defendant had served intoxicating liquor during prohibited, hours. The case was dismissed. The following rather peculiar case came up before the Worcester Quarter Sessions (England) recently. It is well worth republishing ; — Alberta Archer and Messrs Sladden and Collier, Limited, were the appellants in an appeal against the refusal of the justices to renew a beer and wine license of Arcadia, Broad Street. Mr Vachell, for the justices, said that there were ten grounds of appeal. According to the register of licenses, dated 1872, there was a license for the sale of sweets to Mr William Browning a confectioner. In 1881 Browing obtained an onlicense for beer and wine. In the following year he dropped the sweets license. In 1897 the license holder, Mr Edward Bullock, sold his interest in the house to Messrs Sladden and Collier, Limited. The new owners abandoned the confectioner’s business and established a drinking bar. On January 12. 1898, the license was transferred from Mr Bullock to Mr John Tombs, and on the 19th of February, 1898, the premises were opened under the name of Arcadia. Miss Alberta Archer presided over the establishment, and carried on the business. In July the Chief of Police found that Miss Archer had not a license at all; the license was held by Mr Tombs, who, however, did not reside on the premises. Miss Archer was fined £2 and costs for selling drink without a license. In August the license was transferred to Miss Archer, and at the annual licensing meeting on August 31 an application was made for its renewal. The justices objected on the grounds that Miss Archer had been convicted ; that the premises were not necessary for the reuuirements of the neighbourhood ; and that the premises had been altered from their original character of a refreshment house, and the justices refused the renewal. Mr Byrne, chief constable, said that there was not a word to be said against the way in which the establishment was conducted. Mr Candy, Q.C., for the appellants, said that if alterations had been made in the house they were not such as justified the license being taken away; but

the fact was that the owners of the property had made internal alterations consistent with their intention to carry on the business which the license covered. There had been no structural alterations, therefore no plans had been submitted to the Bench. The statute did not require it. Miss Archer atated that not only could liquid refreshment be obtained at the establishment, but things to eat also. If people asked for something to eat they could get it; they could even have a cup of tea. The Court allowed the appeal.