THE ROYAL HOTEL CASE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 747, 30 June 1904, Page 23

THE ROYAL HOTEL CASE.

The following letters have appeared in the “Herald” during the week “Sir, —Public opinion is considerably exercised over the recent Royal Hotel case, which resulted in the licensee (Mr Percy Isaac) having his license endorsed. A brief setting out of the salienft; points in the case may serve to direct the attention both of the public and of the powers that be to the obvious travesty of justice that has taken place. First, then, the licensee was charged with selling liquor to a drunken man. man had orcviously been charged with drunkenness, and pleadi r r ‘Not guilty’ before two J.P.’s in Coirt was found innocent of the charge, which was dismissed. Thus we have the Bemh of justices agreed that the alleged drunken man was not drunk at all. It follows that he was therefore not drunk at all. The second point is that the ’dice, in face of the justices’ decision that the man was innocent, proceeded

without asking leave against the licensee in a higher Court, i.e., before a magistrate, and charging him with supplying liquor to a drunken - man (who had been acquitted of drunkenness) obtaining a conviction. Cn what grounds ? Now, on the other hand, when the licensee applies for permission to appeal against the magistrate’s decision that permission is refused. Is that just, sir ? The vast majority of the public, nay, all fair-minded people, will agree that an injustice has been done. It behoves M.H.R.’s, as the representatives of the people, to see to it during the coming session that the Act that allows of such a gross travesty occurring should be at once amended, and that .magistrates should have discretionary powers in its administration. Further, I consider that a suitable alteration in the Licensing Act should be made retrospective in the present case, so that the endorsement on the license of the Royal Hotel n>ay be speedily cancelled. Public sympathy will undoubtedly be with Mr Isaac, who stands to lose so much for serving drink to a man whom a properly-cc n-

stituted Court ruled was not a drun'ken man.—l am, etc., “PUBLIC OPINION.” June 20. “Sir, —Permit me to occupy a few lines of your valuable space with a matter of great importance to those who believe in justice being, meted out .to everyone, with a fair trial and no favour. It must appeal to every fairminded citizen who holds the court of justice under British rule beyond re. proach in ail actions, be they civil or criminal, that a gross injustice has been done to the proprietor of the Royal Hotel by the endorsement of his license. The facts of the case are too glaring to need any reproduction, but possibly a little review of the arrest of the man McLyndon, over whom all the trouble arose, will show this matter in its" true light. On April 27 last McLyndon was arrested for drunkenness, and on being brought before the Court was discharged, not guilty. The powers that be then took steps to revive this charge, and make the licensee of the Royal responsible for serving liquor to McLyndon, whom they’ (the powers) swore

was drunk, e\ en though this man had been discharged .in the Police Court. How well the police have succeeded is new a matter of history, and the license of the leading hotel in this city has been endorsed, in my opinion, on anything but fair grounds. To every man who has been educated to see and revere our poddess of Justice walking blind throughout our fair land, this endorsement of the Royal Hotel license is an absolute travesty on .her honoured name. Then again the police have power to appeal against the decision of the J.P.’s, and do so successfully, but His Worship declines to grant the same privilege to the poor publican, who must grin and bear being ruined, because Mr Kettle will not allow him. The comments of His Worship on the Licensing Act would seem to indicate that our legislators never intended that a hotel license which has cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £20,000 should be rendered valueless by a charge like the foregoing and the circumstances that surround it. In justice to the public, and those who from all parts of the glol e rake this hotel their home, I

say without fear of contradiction that this is one of the best-conducted hotels south of the line, and not in any way dependent on its bar trade —and yet the police procure the endorsement of the license. I think it is time some stand should be taken by our M.H.R.’s to prevent a repetition of such a glaring injustice. Remember, the police have the right to appeal against the decision of the J.P.’s, but the publican is granted no option in the matter by the magistrate when his license is endorsed, be he ever so innocent.—l am, etc., “CECIL EMANUEL.”

An old saying has it that a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client. An exception to the rule was proved at the Licensing Court (says The Hastings correspondent of the Napier “Telegra’-h”), when Mr John? Higgins opposed the rebuilding of the Pacific Hotel. He trade a speech on his own behalf, and although brief it included all the points necessary, finishing with : “Gentlemen, all. T v have to- say in consirn is do to me as you would be d'ne bv vourselvcs.” He won the case.