TRADE TOPICS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 467, 6 July 1899, Page 18

TRADE TOPICS.

Silk’s Leviathian Hotel Temperance, Dunedin, is in the market.

* It was plainly apparent that the people who gathered at the Firebell on Sunday night only wanted to hear Richardson. The “ orator” put off speaking as long as he could, and the consequence was that the droning of the nonentities drove numbers of would-be listeners away.

On Sunday, Richardson, the good, the angelic, he of the soft truth-telling tongue, declared himself to be a politician. Goodness gracious! What about that election in New South Wales when he polled exactly seven votes ? Evidently there was a difference of opinion between the electors and the candidate as to the merits of the latter as a “ politician!” Richardson’s “right-about-turns” are very amusing. On Sunday, June 25, he said “that it was impossible to get a conviction against a publican because the police were choked and perjury was frequent.” On Sunday, July 1, he bestowed a good many admiring adjectives upon the Auckland constabulary. Even the sedate Sergeant Treanor had to smile at this v. ''e face. I see that the daily contemporaries of the Sporting Review have followed the lead given in these columns in regard to the man Richardson, and I also notice that in following the lead, they have made the best use of the ideas furnished in these columns. Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, but I think there was room for just a little more originality. The Herald is quite original in one thing, Richardson is styled an “orator.” Why, oh! Why, why, dear Herald"?

The prohibitionist agitator on Sunday last dropped all his invective He again found discretion the better part of valour, and his worst relapse into “ larrikin lingo,” was when he said he had attacked the “vagabond Jews” on the previous Sunday. It is impossible to make a Russia leather purse out of hogskin, and it is just as difficult to inculcate a sense of decency into the mind of the Wharf “ Orator.”

At Blackpool, on Monday, May 15, the Chief Constable stated that for the information of tne Bench and the public generally he should like to say that on the previous Saturday, notwithstanding the fact that they had between 40,000 and 50,000 miners in the town, there was only one case of drunkenness. The men were exceedingly well behaved, and he attributed that in a great measure to the discretion and scrutiny used by the licensed victuallers of the town. He thought the licensed victuallers and the miners were to be the former on their excellent supervision, and the latter on their good behaviour.

Under the English Inebriates Act a county council is empowered to establish a drunkards’ reformatory for itself or in combination with other county councils, to acquire a right to a certain number of places by a capital contribution to the cost of an institute established by a voluntary association, or to acquire such right by an annual contribution to the institution. The West Sussex County Council, who have had the matter in hand, considered the first method obviously unsuitable to such a county as West Sussex. With regard to the other mode, the Royal Victoria Homes Institution at Horfield, near Bristol, is about to establish an inebriate reformatory. The council could secure seven places by making a capital contribution of £l,OOO, or enter into a contract to send cases—the agreement was to be not less than five cases and for a period of at least five years—for an annual payment. The committee recommended an annual payment contract, and, on the motion of Lord Leconfield, the council has agreed to this.

The medical faculty agree that good whisky is the best form in which alcohol can be taken. The Distillers’ Co., Ltd , of Edinburgh, with its capital of £1,500,000, and magnificent appliances, is in a position to produce the finest whisky possible, and claim that its universally known brand, “ D.0.L.,” is unexcelled. Australians have taken to that liquor, the sale now surpassing the most sanguine expectations of the Australasian management.

The following story is going the rounds : Mr Capper, who had amassed a large fortune as a grocer, one night wandered about London seeking a lodging, but could find nothing to suit him. Being tired and hungry, and arriving at the Horns Tavern, Kennington, he entered and ordered a chop and a bed. Always being shabbily dressed and churlish in his manner, and the landlord, Mr Townsend, being in no good humor, he was told that he could not be accommodated. “I can’t stop here, can’t I?” retorted the old man. “ Damme, sir, I’ll stop here all my life !” And so he did, for he never slept away from the Horns for twenty-five years.

Discussion has lately taken place in London on the relative drinking powers of the United Kingdom, her colonies, the United States, Germany, and France. On the whole, the statistics gave a bad pre-eminence to France, and the best position to the United States. “It may be noted that (says one writer) with hardly an exception, the proportion of liquor . drunk throughout the colonies has steadily diminished during the last 25 years, partly, no doubt, through the increase in the non-drinking population—the women and young persons —but partly, also, through a general advance in education, in settled habits of life, and though an active temperance propaganda. It may be observed that Canada and New Zealand, the most sober of the colonies, are also those in which the agitation for total prohibition is strongest. It should also be noted that, though wages are higher and hours of labour shorter in the colonies than in England, and the spending power and leisure of the workingman accordingly greater, he does not misuse his opportunities of drinking more than his brother at Home. On the contrary, he drinks less.”

In the House of Lords on Tuesday, May 16 before Lord Macnaghten (presiding), and Lords Morris, Shand, and Davey, the important licensing appeal of the Mayor of Tynemouth v. the Attorney-General, on the relation of the Newcastle Brewries, Limited, which was an appeal on an important question with respect to licensing, was determined. A Divisional Court, afterwards confirmed by the Court of Appeal, had granted an injunction against the Corporation of Tynemouth, forbidding them to pay out of the borough fund the costs of the chief constable for opposing at Brewster Sessions the renewal of certain licenses, and also on appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Corporation now appealed, and their lordships unanimously dismissed the appeal, saying it was enough to say, without deciding whether the appellants could have brought themselves within the protection of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, that they had not done so. It was clear that the expenses in question had not been examined and allowed in the manner prescribed. He doubted whether an officer appointed by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State, or by the Local Government Board, would have allowed the luxury of litigation in which the appellants appeared to have indulged.

The Melbourne Sportsman thus speaks out in a recent issue:—“For the time is approaching when the association will need to use all its strength to meet its faes. Amendments of the present Licensing Act are urgently needed, and these will not, the Trade may be assured, be secured without a fight. In the past, any attempt to lighten the heavy burdens under which the licensed- victualler at present suffers has been strenuously opposed by the temperance portion of the community. This, again, has brought its influence Io bear on its representatives in the Legislature, with the result that the Premier, even though he could not fail to admit the justice of the claims made by the Trade, has been compelled to stay bis hand. It is just here that we perceive the value of organised work. The temperance bodies close up their ranks when they require anything from Parliament. Their deputations to the Premier was large, and composed of influential men ; money is freely subscribed ; no effort is spared to place their views fully before the community. Can the licensed victuallers say as much with truth ? We fear not. With few exceptions their labors in this direction have been but half-hearted. There has been no combination of the wholesail and re ail trades. The epeeches that were made at the last annual meeting—some of violent — showed us the br< ach bet ween the two divisions cf the Trade.”

A recent decision given by a London magistrate, to the effect that betting in a public-house was legal, is not according to the law of the land. An English contemporary says : —“ Betting in public-houses has not been legalised by the late decision, and the best advice we can offer every member of the Trade is to promptly eject any and every man who attempts to use his house for the purpose of betting. ’Tis not a case of “To Bet or not to Bet” (to burlesque an immortal writer), but a certainty, that the license, holder who jeopardises his license by permitting betting on his premises because of the recent police-conrt decision, runs a million to one on chance of getting convicted. In these times, when so many traps are laid for the licensed Trade, it behoves members of this great and glorious industry to be on the alert and to listen to the words of wisdom we utter unto them in this direction. The Anti-Gambling League is already on the warpath, and is publishing far and wide the statement that ‘ betting in publichouses is now legalised.’ This is simply a trap for the Trade which we beg all and sundry to escape. Prevent betting on your premises in every shape and form is the best advice we can give to those who hold licenses. Let magisterial decisions and newspaper interviews go to the wind—atop betting in any form on your premises if you wish to preserve your license.”

The temperance people had a conference at Brighton, England, recently, and they, in confirming that they had made little or no progress with regard to Sunday closing, attributed their non-success to the Licensing Commission.

On Wednesday, May 24—Queen’s Birthday, too, a “lady” (?) entered the shop of an off-licence holder in Lincoln and asked for a bottle of beer. She was told she could not drink it on the premises, and then, pointing to the beer engines she asked what they were for. Being told they were used to pump beer from the cellar, she asked if she might have a glass of that. Again there came a refusal, and the lady was informed that if she wanted some beer very badly there was a house near with an on-licence, where she could be supplied. She then asserted that she was a teetotaler, and thought it a disgrace that a license should be attached to a house where a branch of a government department was also carried on. The place is also a post office. Her object in pleading for a drink was thus mado sufficiently clear, and we L. V. Gazette, warn, off® license holders to beware of the tactics of these teetotal temptresses.

At the Police Court on Monday, before Mr T. Hutchison, S M., Duncan Stewart, licensee of the Empire Hotel, was charged with allowing liquor to be supplied to one Alfred Richard Barnsley, a child apparently under the age of 13 years, for consumption off the premises. The evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that Alfred Richard Barnsley, a boy of twelve, went to defendant’s hotel and purchased sixpence worth of beer from Mrs Stewart. She asked him if he was thirteen, and he said “ Yes,” his mother having told him to say so. Constables Henry and Ramsay saw the boy carrying the beer wrapped in a towel, and took him back to the hotel, where he pointed out Mrs Stewart as the lady who had served him. Mr Campbell, on behalf of the defendant, contended that he ought not to be convicted, if Mrs Stewart believed that she was not committing a breach of the law when serving the child. Mrs Stewart stated that the child told her he was 13, and as she believed he was over the age she served him. She had never seen him before. Sub-Inspector Wilson : What made you ask the boy his age ? Witness: I didn’t feel sure; I thought he might be 13 or 14, or under. Was it his size or appearance ? Well, it might be. I suppose it was. His Worship: It all comes back to this: Why did you serve the boy ? What was the immediate cause ? Witness: Because I thought he was of age. I thought I was justified in serving him. But you did not come to that conclusion at once. You asked for information, I suppose, because you weren’t sure ? Yes. Then you supplied the drink because of his answer ? Yes, because of his answer and appearance. An appearance you weren’t sure about, and an answer which was a lie. Well, I didn’t know that. Two other witnesses deposed to hearing Mrs Stewart ask the boy if he was over 13, the boy replying that he was. His Worship said he would give judgment in writing, and the case was accordingly adjourned. Gn Monday morning Mr T Hutchison, S.M., gave judgment in the case Police v. Bogue, in which the defendant, John Bogue, licensee of the Takapuna Hotel, was charged with keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor on Sunday, June 18th. His Worship said it was clear that the defendant’s house was open on the Sunday in question, and that various persons were served with liquor in the open bar. The defence was that, as a matter of fact, the persons served were bona tide travellers, and that as a matter of fact the defendant could lawfully open his house to supply travellers. On the question of fact the onus was, of course, on the defendant. The only evidence on the point was that of the wife of the defendant. His Worship was far from thinking that was as full or as satisfactory as it might be, but he was satisfied that Mrs Bogue was perfectly honest in her statements, and having nothing' else to guide him, he might conclude that those persons served were bona fide travellers. He must, however, say that Mrs Bogue and, as he gathered, the defendant also, had the most hazy ideas as to the duty and responsibility of a licensee in regard to serving persons with liquor during prohibited hours. Indeed, the whole defence had been conducted in a most perfunctory manner, and with a very inadequate conception of what the law required in such a case. Then, assuming the persons served with liquor were travellers, it was contended that the defendant had the right, in law, to open his house to satisfy them. If the • case turned upon the validity of this proposition of law, His Worship thought it was quite clear that the defendant must be convicted. The contention was based upon the cases of Peache V. Coleman (L R.1.C.P.), and Copley v. Barton (L.R. 5 C.P.), which were plainly of no authority under the present Licensing Acts, as His Worship proceeded to show. He said the proposition so confidently advanced by counsel for the defence was seen to be based on no authority, and to be quite untenable. The defendant, however, was rescued from this legal quandary by a fact which seemed established. It appeared that the defendant’s hotel was so constructed that it was physically impossible to get to the bar where the liquor was kept without opening it externally. His Worship was very far from admitting that a licensee could so plan his premises as to make its construction a convenient pretext for opening his house from time to time on a Sunday with impunity, but he could not impute the condition of the premises in the present case as a structural device to cover a breach of law on the part of the defendant, since the latter had only quite recently entered the hotel for the first time. The facts were therefore open to the construction that the defendant had necessarily to open the bar, just as another man might have to go to his cellar, to get at the drink which he had lawfully sold. And admitting that construction, the information would be dismissed. He might add that so long as the existing condition of things remained, the licensee might incur the suspicion of illegal trafficking, and it might not be out of place for the police to represent the state of the house tothe Licensing Bench of the district.