TRADE TOPICS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 470, 27 July 1899, Page 18

TRADE TOPICS.

On Friday in the House of Representatives, Mr Bollard asked the Minister for Justice if he was aware that a great injustice had been done to Mrs Hertz, the land-lady of the New Lynn Hotel, in the Eden licensing district, through having her application refused for a publican’s license, because she was unwittingly guilty of a breach of the Licensing Act; and would the Minister ask the House to amend the law in the direction of giving stipendiary magistrates discretionary power in the matter of endorsing licenses in similar cases. Mr Bollard briefly ex - plained the case. He had no desire to interfere with the administration of justice, but he thought some alteration in the law was necessary. The whole power should not rest with the stipendiary magistrate. The Premier said he had made inquiries, and Mr Hutchinson, S.M., had stated that Mrs Hertz offended unknowingly, and he had promised to give a certificate of fitness if she could get another hotel in the Eden district. The case opened a big question. The present condition of affairs in respect to the endorsement of licenses was such that the tenure of hotelkeepers was in many cases practically only from month to month. The condition of the hotelkeepers was almost unbearable. A discretionary power should be given to the magistrate. A change in the law was necessary. We are continually being asked questions members of the Trade as to whether they ar e allowed to supply intoxicating liquors to persons who call during closing hours and represent that the liquor is needed for some one who has been taken suddenly ill, says the London L. V. Gazette. So far as it is possible to ascertain, we fail to find any decision of the High Court which governs the point. Of course, strictly in accordance with the law, the supply, even in cases of sickness, during prohibited hours is an offence which renders the licensee liable to a fine of £lO for the first offence and £2O for subsequent offences. It would, however, be a harsh and tyrannical police officer who would care to summon a landlord for breaking the law in cases where, it may be, human life depends upon his so doing. And we do not think for one moment that there is any magistrate in the land who would convict, provided of course that it could be shown the landlord had reasonable belief that the sudden illness of the person for whom the spirit was required, was a fact. In all applications for supply in cases of sickness, the licensee must use his discretion, by forming an opinion upon the statements made to him by the person seeking to be supplied. It seems to us that a person who requires stimulants in a sudden case of sickness may be considered to be entitled to the same privilege of emergency as a traveller, but of course no limit of distance would be applicable. Anyhow, although the supply during prohibited hours to anyone except a bona fide traveller is contrary to the law, it would surely strike every magistrate on the bench that in cases of supply during sudden sickness the law would be ‘ ‘ more honoured in the breach than by the observance.” Provided a landlord exercises his discretion and common sense when applied to for spirits in cases of emergency, and acts according to the dictates of humanity, he can have nothing to fear.

Extracts from the Liquor Control debate on Thursday .- Mr Gilfedder explained that by the Act of 1895, after prohibition had been carried in a district, and the electoral boundaries of the district were subsequently altered it might happen that a hotel would be included in the amended district. The Bill proposed to do away with such an anomaly. The Premier seconded. He said it was crass stupidity of the Representation Commissioners to so alter a district as to include a hotel within its bouudaries, after nolicense had been carried. He wanted the community, who voted for prohibition, to have the same opportunity of carrying reinstatement. Mr J. W. Thomson said he was sure temperance people would agree that it was only fair that the people should have the right to vote for reinstatement as well as for prohibition. Mr Smith looked upon the Bill as an insidious attempt to prevent the people of Clutha from carrying out their views on the subject. Mr Meredith thought that in such an important matter the Government should have introduced a Bill. If the Bill got into committee, he believed there would be 50 amendments moved. Mr Morrison blamed the Commissioners for tacking a hotel on to a prohibition district. In the interests of morality, he said the sooner licenses were restored to Balclutha the better. There had been so much lying, hypocrisy, and perjury created in Balclutha since prohibition had been carried, that the sooner the law was altered the better. He asked the prohibition members if they felt so sure of their position to support the Bill, and let the electors of Balclutha decide whether they wished prohibition to continue or licenses reinstated. Mr Pirani said the people of Balclutha were quite satisfied with the law as it stood. He deprecated the language used by the Premier with regard to the Representation Commissioners’ The trouble with regard to the Balclutha district had arisen through prohibitionists insisting upon the vote being taken over an area, the boundaries of which were coterminous with the electoral district. Mr Taylor contended that no decent man could get liquor in Balclutha, and he challenged the member for Caversham to give the name of the man who imported liquor into the district in a kerosene tin. He refuted the charge made that sly grog-selling was rampant in the district. Mr Kelly objected to the Bill on the ground that it applied to only one district in the colony, and deprecated the attack made on the Boundary Commissioners by the Premier. If the Bill got into Committee, he would test the House on the question of holding the local option poll on the day of the general election. Mr Guinness moved that the Bill be read that day

six months- Mr Field supported. Mr Morrison replied to Mr Taylor’s arguments, and Mr Taylor again spoke. Mr Seddon said the House had been listening to a speech that was a disgrace to the Legislature. The attitude he took up was to place Clutha in exactly the same position, as far as prohibition was concerned, as. it was before the boundaries of the electoral district. were altered. If members would approach the subject in a calm and dispassionate manner, free from personalities, they could frame a measure that wonld be workable and prove of benefit to the colony.