HOME NOTES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 813, 5 October 1905, Page 24

HOME NOTES.

(London “ L.V. Gazette,” August 18, 1905). Are corporations responsible for the payment of costs incurred by the borough licensing justices in fighting mandamus cases in the King’s Bench Division and the Court of Appeal? This is a question that has been engaging the attention of the Birkenhead Town Council in connection with the Birkenhetrd cases, and after a discussion lasting oyer three hours the Council, with the view of putting an end to the deadlock which has arisen between the Finance Committee and the justices, passed a resolution by 21 votes to 12 ordering the committee to pay the costs in dispute, amounting altogether to about £7OO, forthwith. * -K * * What the ratepayers will say to this, especially after the opinion expressed by a well-known King’s Bench counsel whose advice had been sought by the Finance Committee remains to be seen. His communication, which was read at the meeting, was to the following effect: “ The borough fund is a statutory fund, and can only be applied towards the payment of such things as are ex-

pressly authorised by statute. I am not aware of any statutory provision which authorises the costs in question to be defrayed out of the borough fund. I am of opinion that the Corporation may be restrained from making any such payment.”

Whatever may be said to the contrary, there can be little doubt that the Finance Committee practically made acknowledgment of its liabilities in advancing £3OO to the justices on account in connection with these cases. The chairman of the committee, however, insisted that this money was advanced not out of the borough fund, but out of money in the hands of the borough treasurer. Further, he contended that the passing of the resolution would not relieve tlio deadlock since ail orders for payments by the Finance Committee must be passed by three of the members, and in the event of payment being challenged, those signatories were liable to surcharge. Surely, however, the Town Council would never have instructed the committee “to pay the costs forthwith ’ if they had not the power enforce their order being carried into effect. This, however, does not get over the duficulty with the ratepayers.

We have heard a good deal lately ‘-.bout the trader’s right to bottles. There was the case at Southampton a short fnio ago when the judge laid it down that it the bottles were embossed with the name of the firm the purchaser had no right or title to them, no matter what he nvg.ht have given for them. Several cases have since cropped up in Scotland, and in each an interim injunction has been granted restraining their use by the purchasers while damages have also been claimed. The surprising thing is that well-known brewery firms and aerated water manufacturers should have posed as innocent people in connection with this matter. A trader’s right to the exclusive use of his own bottles is recognised throughout the country. Evidently none of the firms proceeded against could have studied the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act oi’ the litigation would never have taken place. In one case it was sought to make out that the use of the bottles must have been accidental, not intentional, and it was urged that if interdict were granted it might injure the firm. Tn any event if it were granted it ought to be “ granted on caution.” The sheriff, in granting the interim interdict, very properly refused to entertain any such

suggestion. There would be no necessity to go to the expense of embossed bottles if they were no protection to the Trade.

In the face of the unsatisfactory, not to say disastrous, reports presented by some of the English brewery companies, the shareholders of Mitchell and Butler’s, Limited, may well congratulate themselves on the result of the year’s trading which permits of the payment of a dividend on the ordinary shares of 20 per cent. At the same time they must not lull themselves into a sense of false security. In ordei” to meet the demands for compensation under the new Licensing Act, this, company will be called upon to pay something like £lO,OOO per annum, and the chairman —Air. Henry Mitchell —frankly told the shareholders at the meeting on Alonday that they must regard this amount as a permanent and fixed charge upon the earnings. And yet there ai-e people who will persist in calling this Act a “brewers’ endowment scheme!” This contribution practically means 2 per cent, of the dividend on the ordinary shares, and the amount will have to be provided out of next year’s and future profits. To-day the £5 shares which are quoted on the Birmingham Exchange at 15| give a return of about £6 7s 6d per cent. The conversion of these shares will be proceeded with at an early date.

“ British growers can supply the brewers this year, and the foreigner can keep his hops at home.” This is the remark made by a correspondent in connection with the hop crop, which, judging from the various reports published, is likely to prove an excellent one, alike from the point of view of quantity and of quality. It is quite possible that growers and merchants will be willing to accept lower prices, but this does not mean—as some people seem to think—that beer will be cheaper. Beer, in fact, is quite cheap enough, and neither the public or the Trade would be benefited by any alteration in the present retail price. What, is greatly desired by the Trade is a relief from the heavy taxation which they have borne ever since the outbreak of the South African war, and it is hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way clear next year to take off the extra duty.

A good deal is heard on this side about colonial preference, but it should be dis-

tinctly understood that there is nothing of a sentimental character about the offers now being made by “ England’s sons beyond the seas.” Take Canada’s offer, for instance, to admit Cape wines into the Dominion at the rate of 25 cents per gallon. Why the Cape, which is producing little more than is needed for its own consumption, and not Australia, which is cultivating a large export trade, not only with this country, but with the Continent of Europe? The Canadian Finance Minister replies: “Because Australia does not give us the benefit of any preference, whilst South Africa does.” New South Wales, which produces large quantities of wine, formerly had a preference with Canada, but after the Australian colonies were united into a Commonwealth the tariff conditions were changed and the preference ceased. But when all is said and done, the preference granted to South Africa is nothing very considerable; it is simply to allow the wines of that country to enter Canada up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit at a duty of 25 cents per gallon, under which French wines of 26 per cent, or less are now admitted. That the resolution passed by the Leeds City Council in favour of appealing to Parliament on behalf of the licensing justices for power to close publichouses and clubs earlier at night and open them at a later hour in the morning would raise a storm of opposition is only what might have been expected. The local licensed victuallers’ association may be expected to deal with this matter m no half-hearted way, and they will receive support from a large body of the ratepayers. Meanwhile the executive of the Wakefield district branch of the Working Men’s Club and Institute Union, representing fifty-two clubs and a membership of over 10,000, have entered a strong protest against any alteration of the licensing laws which will give to justices power to interfere with club hours of opening and closing, and each member of Parliament representing, any portion of the area of the branch is to be approached with the view of ascertaining his attitude on the question. The Trade as a body must regret to find that there have been so many prosecutions of late for permitting betting on licensed premises. It is time that some warning was issued. One can excise the inexperienced license-holder, but it> is difficult to understand a publican who has long been in business tunning the risk of a conviction. A ’ ooxmaker, of course, is quite at liberty + o enter any public-house, and should he use the bar for the purpose of paying debts made and lost elsewhere, that is not using the house for “the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto,” but where a professional betting man conducts the business of ready-money betting in the bar to the knowledge of the licensee, the licensee is guilty of an offence under th-j Licensing Act of 1872, and the bookmaker may be prosecuted under the Betting Act of 1853. No Trade Protection Society could defend any licensed victualler who deliberately broke the law this connection, and should any licenseholder know of a bookmaker who uses the bar of his house for the purpose of betting with the customers, the sooner he is warned off the premises the better While the trade can boast of its friends, it is not without its enemies. ♦ * * * All who travel over the Confine fit of Europe, either for pleasure or business, are well aware of the keen ntn petition that, exists amongst the hotel p-: ( sActors,* especially at the various -faude resorts. The system of touting, however, now so prevalent, is likely to receive a check by a recent decision of the Havre Commercial Court. On the arrival of an Englishman at Dieppe . who had booked five bedrooms for himself and family at one of the leading hotels, he was met by the interpreter of a boardinghouse, the proprietor of which had also received notification of the visit of a traveller of the same name. This interpreter, it appears, was formerly employed at the hotel in question, and although it is said that he well knew he had to look after a single visitor, he made himself known to the Englishman and his family of five, and conducted them to the boarding establishment. An action for damages was instituted hy the proprietor of the hotel against the boarding-house keeper, and judgment was given in his favour, the judge remarking : “Tt is notorious that certain interpreters of hotels do not hesitate to deceive travellers on their arrival and try, often by dishonest means, to persuade them to go to their hotel, where they will be recompensed for their zeal by a premium from their employers, who thus wrongly encourage this not very scrupulous custom which may be said to constitute a conspiracy.