LEAGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 548, 20 June 1901, Page 19

LEAGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

In the Wellington Police Court, John Conroy, a prohibited person, was fined 40s and 9s costs, in default fourteen days’ hard labour for being found on licensed premises. A fine of £5, in default one month’s imprisonment, was inflicted by Mr Eyre-Kenny at Wanganui, on a man for procuring liquor for a person whom he knew to be prohibited.

All borough licenses at Timaru have been renewed on condition that more effective means of escape, in case of fire, are provided by fixed ladders or stairs, and spare ladders for use at street windows. In the local Police Court last week a riotous individual was fined 10s or forty-eight hours for behaving in a threatening manner, and 20s and costs for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested to do so.

At the adjourned meeting of the New Plymouth Licensing Bench last Friday, the Magistrate postponed his decision upon the new licenses sine die, and also adjourned the renewal applications pending personal inspection of the premises.

At the Woodville Licensing Court all licenses applied for were granted. The police report stated that the Makuri Hotel, which has just been re-built, having been burned down in November last, is a splendid building in everyparticular. The licensee of the Makakahi Hotel was ordered to enlarge his premises, in view of the rapid growth of the district, in which is situated a popular fishing resort about four miles from Pahiatua. There was no application for. an extension of closing hours.

At the annual sitting of the Marsden Licensing Bench, Mr Hutchison, S.M., presiding, accommodation licenses were granted to Hukerenui, Hikurangi, Maungakahia, Ngungaru, Parua Bay, Poroti, Tangiteroria and Tokatoka. Hotels : Publicans’ licenses were granted to Kamo, Kamo Springs, Whangarei, Commercial and Settlers’ Hotels. No renewal license had been applied for by the proprietor of the Star Hotel, Kamo, this license being allowed to lapse in favour of the new one issued at the Kamo Springs.

At the sitting of the Thames Licensing Bench, applications were made by Herbert MacDonald and William Norton for licenses for new houses to be erected at Gumtown. Mr Miller and Mr Cruickshank appeared for the respective applicants, and Mr Clendon in support of a memorial praying for the refusal of the applications. The chairman pointed out that the committee had no power to deal with the same, unless by Order-in-Council, and they were not supplied with such in the present instances. The applications were refused, and Mr Clendon’s application for costs disallowed.

A painful scene was enacted at the annual meeting of the Mafaura Licensing Committee at Gore, on Wednesday (says the “ Ensign ”), resulting in Mr W. F Inder, solicitor, being arrested and fined for contempt of Court, The incident occurred when the application of George Dempster (for whom Mr Inder appeared), for a renewal of his license for the Railway Hotel, Edendale, was called on. Sergeant Fleming proceeded to quote from what was presumed to be a report relative to a charge for a breach of the Licensing Act, pending against Dempster, when M r Inder demanded that he should not be allowed to read the report, contending that the paper should first be placed in the hands of the chairman (Mr Stratford, S M ), for him to decide whether it should be read. Sergeant Fleming proceeded to explain the nature of the impending charge, but Mr Inder excitedly ordered him to stop; whereupon, Mr Stratford, with considerable warmth, warned Mr Inder that if he was not careful he would be committed for contempt. The sergeant again referred to the charge, when Mr Inder, with an exclamation of disgust, threw a book he had in his hands upon the table, round which members of the committee were sitting, for which act an apology was demanded, and was forthcoming. After a further heated altercation between the chairman and Mr Inder, the former ordered the offending counsel to be placed under arrest in the body of the Court until the committee rose. The upshot was that Mr Inder was fined £2 for contempt for wilfully obstructing the Court, the amount to be paid forthwith. He asked for a stay of the proceedings, saying he would apply to the Supreme Court for a writ ot prohibition. Mr Inder also contended that the committee had no power to impose a fine. He had not, he said, been guilty of any wilful insult to any member of the committee or to its clerk.

At the Lyttelton Magistrate’s Court, Mary Christopherson was fined £5 for sly- grog selling. The constables who laid the charge had represented themselves as run away sailors, and as being hard up. They were! treated with great kindness, and an account for board and lodgings was considerably reduced for them. They bouj ht a shilling’s worth of whisky, hence the charge, A small quantity of spirits was found in the house.

At the Taranaki Annual Licensing Meeting, Mr Stanford, S.M,, made some remarks which have given rise to considerable comment. Speaking with thirty years’ experience of the licensing laws, he said it was not creditable to the colony that owing to a variety of causes, legislation should so imperfectly provide the extension of licensed houses as settlement and population increased. He had no hesitation in saying that a licensed house was wanted at each of five different places in northern Taranaki. It was impossible to see where the principle of local option applied when residents of Dunedin and Wellington prepared a conclave and assembled to decide the question of licenses in the King Country. It was two decades since the principle of local option was introduced into the Statute Book, and it had not proved satisfactory. Mr Stanford pointed out that while commercial travellers possess special privileges as regards voting for members ot Parliament, this class which knows most about licensing matters is practically disfranchised from voting for members of licensing committees, while the local residents, who, perhaps, never enter a licensed house at all, are the sole arbiters. Having come to the conclusion that prohibition does not prohibit, Mr Stanford suggested the adoption of some modified form of the Gothenburg system.