THE LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XV, Issue 866, 11 October 1906, Page 20

THE LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE

£rade topics

The rights to the publicans booths at the Otahuhu Racing Club’s meeting were brought by Mr J. Molloy for Tenders are invited for the erection of a new hotel at Waitara, to replace the one recently burned down. * * * * In a court case in Wellington last week, a son stated that his mother was a victim to the chlorodyne habit, and that she paid a chemist 12s a week for the drug. • .* * * Mr James Paul, the well-known West Coast brewer, died at New Plymouth last Thursday. The deceased gentleman, aged 64, had suffered a long illness. » • * * America’s total bill for beverages last year was 10,000,000, representing, an increase of £?io,ooo,ooo over the previous year. * * • Sergeant Stapleton, who has been in charge of the Waikato district for many years, will, it is stated, shortly retire on a pension. In the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court last Friday, Mr Wray, S.M., fined Fredrick Charles Startup £5O for selling liquor in a no-license district, and convicted him on a second charge of selling. A third information for receiving orders for liquor was dismissed without prejudice. The “Gazette” notifies that intoxicating liquor shall not be supplied to any Maori for consumption off the licensed premises in the following Maori Council districts: Ngatiwhatua, Mamapoto, Tauranga, Whanganui Kurahaupo, Tamatea, Rongokako, and Raukawa. ♦ * * * For being found in the Market Hotel, James Dodds, a prohibited person, was last Friday fined £2 and 7s costs. It was stated that defendant was not supplied with any liquor in the hotel Thomas McDonald was fined £2 and costs 7s in the local court last Friday, for being found on licensed premises during the currency of a prohibition order. « * * * In Sydney, the manufacturers recommend the inister for Customs to reduce the duty on New Zealand hops to 3d per lb. The present duty is 6d per lb. In the local Court last Friday a young man named Michael Kelly was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for sly grog-selling. • * * * A squad of bluejackets from the warship Chaollenger visitecl Gore last week for “a dav in the country.” On their arrival they found Gore was a prohibition town, and their disappointment, adds a contemporary, can be better imagined than described. * * ♦ * Proof spirit is a mixture of 49.24 of alcohol and 50.76 of water. * * * * Twenty-seven out of every hundred people in the world live under the Union Jack. * * * * Captain Atkin, the Commissioner of the British Government to the New Zealand Exhibition, who has had. a wide experience in regard to exhibitions, was surprised to learn that no liquor is to be sold within the Exhibition buildings. He thinks this is an extreme measure that will have anything but a beneficial effect on the Exhibition.“ Why, at St. Louis,” he said, “it was the aim of the authorities to get as many people as possible to give lunches and dinner parties within the exhibition —those attending have to pay an admission fee — but that would be out of the question unless you are permitted to order ales and wines.”

A Bill dealing with the sale of liquor at Bellamy’s was rejected last week by the Legislative Council. For the quarter ending September 30, the amount collected as beer duty in Auckland amounted to 4s id, an increase of J 9 S Ild over the corresponding quarter in 1905. * * * * Tenders are called for the painting and papering of Gleeson’s Hotel, Lower Hobson Street. The big tobacco firm, Messrs Ogden’s Limited, will pay to settle bonus claims which were stated to involve the sum of two millions. » * * * Two appeal cases in connection with convictions for keeping liquor for sale in a no-license district came before Mr Justice Chapman in Dunedin last Thursday. His Honor reserved his decision. * * * * It is reported that Mr E. Parris, of the Ellerslie Hotel, has sold out to Mr T. McHaigh, of Te Aroha. The amount paid for beer duty in Auckland last month showed an increase over the amount paid in September last year, the figures for 1905 being 2- 7d, and for 1906 6s gd. » • * * The British revenue for the past quarter is stated at of which Cusoms contributed excise ,£8,426,000, and estate duties /?4»9 2 9»" 029. * * * * In the Waihi Police Court last week a man was fined an d costs 15s, for using indecent language in a public bar. It is rumoured that Mr Bygrave, late of Waihou, will very shortly be in the hotel business again. A visitor from Great Britain has expressed the opinion that had it been known that the Christchurch Exhibition was to be run on no-license lines, there would have been fewer applications for space. * * * * In the local Court, a prohibition order was issued last week against an elderly man named James Smith. » * ♦ * A prohibited person who had drunk a parcel of wine given him by a gumdigger, was last week fined 20s or 48 hours’ imprisonment. ♦ * » » The reduction of postage rates for letters in the colony and to the Cook Islands to one penny for four ounces (or fraction thereof) and on charges for the transmission of telegrams within the colony to a half-penny per word with a minimum of sixpence, and for urgents to one penny per word with a minimum of is come into operation on November Ist.

LIQUOR AT BELLAMY’S.

In the Legislative Council last week, in moving the second reading of the Regulation of Bellamy’s Bill, Mr. Reeves said Bellamy’s should be a law to itself, and should not be under any Licensing Act Clause 2 of the Bill provided, subject to section 13 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1895, that liquor might be sold in Parliament House on any day, at any time during which the House was sitting, provided that no liquor should be sold after one hour from the rising of the House of Representatives at any sitting. Mr. Reeves was of opinion that this was a fair provision, and would be of special use to members of the Lower House, when it had late sittings. The Bill further provided that liquor might be sold on any Saturday and Monday during the session, whether there be a sitting of either House of Parliament or not, but no liquor should be sold after eleven p.m. on any of these days, and no liquor should be sold from eleven p.m. on Saturday till eight a.m. on Monday. He thought that eleven p.m closing on Mondays and Saturdays, and the provision for sale until one hour after the sit-

ting of the House were both fair proposals. The Attorney-General opposed the Bill. It repealed section 54 the Licensing Act, 1904, a section which prevented the sale of liquor in Bellamy’s after ten p.m. on week days, and which prohibited the sale on Sundays. This section was put into that Act by the Council itself, by 18 votes to 10, and when it went to the House not a word was said against it. Mr Geo. Jones declared that there had been no call for the Bill. In reply to an interjection bv Mr Beehan, Mr Jones said it was better to act rashly in a good cause than to act deliberately in a bad one. Would the hon. member swallow that? He believed that in the last year or two there had been a sad deficiency in Bellamy’s. (Cries of “No.” Well, if not, his case was all the stronger. Mr Carncross said he had no special interest personally in the passing or otherwise of the Bill, but he would vote for it because ten o’clock closing at Bellamy’s had introduced the hateful locker system. Members who desired alcoholic refreshment had their bottles, with their names on them, and these were put aside for them for use after ten p.m. He did not care much for spirituous liquors, but if he was with company after ten p.m. he had to drink them, because tea, coffee, etc., were not put aside in bottles. If Bellamy’s were open after ten p.m. he could then have a glass of light wine instead of what was put aside in the bottles. Mr Jones: Then you would adapt the law to the acts of the legislators? Mr Carncross : I don’t know what you mean by that. I am going to vote for the second reading of this Bill. Mr Carncross went on to repeat an argument by Mr Beehan, that clause 54 was put in by certain members who wished to retaliate on other members who had helped to bring the clubs under the licensing law. They restricted Bellamy’s in a fit of pique, and the result was the system he had referred to. Mr Jones: Sly grog. Mr Carncross said it was not sly grog, '['he liquor was bought before ten p.m. Mr Jones: It is the same principle. Mr Carnecross said Mr Jones always looked at liquor from an extreme point of view. Messrs Jennkinson and Marshall opposed the Bill. Mr Reeves, in replying, said that a full meeting of members (about 20) of the House Committee, of which he was chairman, had unanimously decided that this Bill would meet the case. He kept his own locker, and he was not ashamed to admit it. He hoped that he would be always able to do so. The keeping of bottles was more conducive to drinking than an open bar. An Hon. Member: Did you find that out? Mr Reeves: I think you have, too, if I am not mistaken. I have seen occasional symptoms of it, anyhow. The second reading was lost by 12 votes to 10. For : Messrs Carncross, Rigg, Mahuta, Reeves, Feldwick, O’Rorke, Beehan, Stevens, Johnson, and Macdonald. Against: Messrs Jones, Thompson, Baldey, Pitt, Smith, Jenkinson, Marshall, Baillie, Kelly, Miller, Holmes, and Bolt.

DECISION RESERVED.

Legal argument in the case against Mr Taylor the licensee of the Fitzroy Hotel, charged with having permitted drunkenness on his premises, was continued before Mr District-Judge Kettle last week. Mr Earl continued his contentions in support of the view that the man Poland, if drunk was not, to the knowledge of the defendant, so drunk as to be a fit subject for shooting out of the hotel. In the reading of authorities, the decisions of Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Williams were quoted. Mr Justice Edwards held that there must be a supplying of liquor to justify a conviction for permitting drunkenness ; but Mr Justice Williams held that a conviction was warranted by the mere act of permitting a drunken man to remain on premises without any attempt to abate

the nuisance, even though no further sale of liquor took place. His Worship said that on this point he agreed with Mr Justice Williams. Mr Earl pointed out that Mr Justice Williams made an exception in favour of cases of lodgers or other persons with a right to remain at the hotel, and counsel contended that the exception applied to Poland, who had previously arranged for a bed. In a reference to the veracity of witnesses, Mr Earl declared that his client had not yet been long enough a licensee to be an accomplished liar, as it had been suggested licensees were. He could have made matters appear a great deal better for himself in the witness-box if he had known how. Mr Selwyn Mays, for the Crown, replied to the arguments put forward by Mr Earl, and quoted several authorities. His Worship reserved his decision.

HOTELKEEPER ASSAULTED.

In the local Court last Friday, James Leith, a respectably-dressed young man, pleaded not guilty to having used indecent language in the public bar of the Avondale Hotel and having assaulted James Ormond, the licensee, by hitting him on the chin. The licensee said that the accused came into the hotel, and when refused drink used the language complained of. Witness tried to catch him, but accused was too quick for him, and got outside and defied him. He then went up and the accused struck him on the chin. Another witness testified to the indecent language having been uttered. Alfred McVeagh (called by Mr J. R. Lundon, who defended) said that the defendant came into the hotel at half-past seven, and the trouble occurred between eight and half-past eight p.m. The trouble commenced in the commercial room. Witness and another had a slight scuffle, and Mr Ormond, who heard the noise, came in saying, “Who did this?” Without saying any more Ormond bundled the defendant outside. Witness did not hear any bad language. The defendant corroborated this statement, and his employer testified as to his good character. His Worship said the evidence for the prosecution was the more reliable. He fined accused £3 10s, and costs £1 5s 4 d » on the first charge, and on the charge of assault he was convicted, and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon.

HEAVY BONUS CLAIMS.

Ogden’s, Limited, has been ordered to pay to settle the bonus claims, which originally were stated to involve a total of >£2,000,000. This case has been before the Courts for more than two years. Ogden’s, Limited, the American tobacco manufacturing company, in an attempt to capture the English market, made a contract with many retail tobacconists to pay them a bonus, and also net profits on the trade done with it on condition that the tobacconists bought their goods direct from

the company, and did not enter into a contract with any other company. This arrangement was to last for four years, but before the expiration of that period Ogden’s, Limited sold their English business to the Imperial Tobacco Company. The Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of Lord Ulverstone, held that there was an absolute undertaking on the part of Ogden’s, Limited, to pay the bonus for four years, and that the contract implied that the company would not do anything during that period to put it out of its power to carry out that undertakingFurther cases were heard last year with the same result. More than 3000 tobacconists have put forward claims, the total of which reached £2,000,000. The damages have been assessed under orders of the Courts.

JUVENILE SMOKING.

In the appendix to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Juvenile Smoking Bill, particular attention is called to the evidence of. Sir William Broadbent and Professor Woodhead, and to the “notice to parents” of the Glasgow School Board now published. A memorandum by Dr. Macnamara on the action of foreign countries in the matter of juvenile smoking is included in the new book. Sir William Broadbent declares that smoking ought to be prohibited up to the age of 21, and that juvenile smoking was causing general physical deterioration. The effects of heavy smoking, he said, were:—Deterioration of the general nervous system; weakening of the heart; diminished circulation ; functional derangements generally ; indigestion; loss of sleep; the giving way to injurious habits of self-indul-gence. Professor Woodhead’s statement is to the effect that smoking by boys causes diminution in weight, chest expansion, and height. He classes nicotine with such poisons as curarine, collidine, lobeline, some of the morphia group, and gelesmine. Dr. Macnamara, in support of the committee’s view that a case has been made out for legislation on the lines of Sir Ralph Littler’s Bill prohibiting the use of tobacco by boys and girls under 16 years of age, points out that: Juvenile smoking is illegal in the Isle of Man. In Cape Colony an “Act to prevent the supply of tobacco to youths” was passed a few months ago. At least nine Legislatures within the British Empire have passed laws against juvenile smoking. In Japan the law prohibits smoking by persons in minority. In the United States a large mCajority of the State Legislatures have passed laws against juvenile smoking. In Russia smoking by the pupils of public schools is prohibited. In Spain, France, and Turkey, there are no regulations on the subject, but even in countries like France and Austria, where the sale of tobacco is State monopoly, steps are taken to prevent boys in the schools from indulging in the habit. From the inclusion in the appendices of the notice to parents issued by the School Board for Glasgow on the subject of cigarette smoking it may be inferred that the committee cordially approve the following recommendations to parents and guardians: Warn against bad practice; remove temptation by watchfulness; examine suspected cases daily; exercise strict supervision over pocket-money, change, and other sources of supply; give no facilities for acquiring tobacco at home.

EVERY MAN HIS OWN BREWER.

From Milwaukee comes the interesting hot-weather news that a chemist of that city claims to have invented a process by which thirsty men will be enabled to carry 480 glasses of good beer about with him in his waistcoat pocket; or, to speak more correctly, an essence has been produced which is stated to be 11,000 times stronger, quantity for quantity, than the best beer from the celebrated Milwaukee breweries. All information vouchsafed so far as to the effect that the magic liquid is an alkaloid from hops, 9500 times stronger than the malt now made from the best barley. When this fluid is combined with water, the contact produces instantaneous fermentation, forming 3! per cent, of alcohol, which is the quantity found in the best American beer.

TEMPERANCE DRINKS.

Devotees to alleged temperance drinks will receive a rude shock from the publication of the following in a Sonthern paper, which states that after analysing numerous samples of alcoholic liquors, Dr. Finch, health officer of Canterbury, decided to take a few samples of temperance drinks. The analysis of these drinks is worth quoting in full: —“Analysis of temperance drinks reveals the fact that our prohibition friends have been consum-

ing a considerable amount of alcohol. Kop’s ale, hop beer, Jubilee beer, and ginger beer, have all been found to contain alcohol, the last-named no less than 3.41 per cent., which nearly approaches that found in an ordinary lager beer.”

TWO APPEAL CASES.

In Dunedin last Thursday Mr Jus.ice Chapman, sitting in banco, heard counsel in two appeal cases from the decision of Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M. William Marshall, cordial manufacturer, was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for keeping liquor for sale at Balclutha,.in a no-license district, and Michael Liston, livery stable keeper, had been fined £so and costs for a similar offence. The ground of appeal was mainly that the magistrate had no right to assume that liquor bought at Stirling, outside of the Clutha district, had ever reached the Clutha district, although appellants, when purchasing, had requested the seller to send notice in the usual way to the proper authority that liquor was going into the Clutha district. The magistrate ruled that the onus was on the appellants to show that the liquor never went into the district. After hearing Messrs D. D. McDonald and A. C. Hanlon for appellants, and the Crown Prosecutor for the respondents, His Honor reserved his decision.

THE FITZROY HOTEL CASE.

Last Monday, Mr District-Judge Ket tie gave his decision in the case in which George Taylor, the licensee of the Fitzroy Hotel was charged with having permitted a man named Poland to remain drunk on his premises. His Worship, in convicting, quoted authorities, and said he was in the position of having to choose in this matter between two judges —Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Williams —who differed in their interpretation of the law. He was inclined to agree with Mr Justice Williams that the offence of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises was committed by the mere act of allowing a drunken man to remain, even though no supply of liquor took place in the house. In his opinion the Legislature intended that the offence of permitting drunkenness and supplying liquor should be treated as separate and distinct offences. There might be cases of drunken persons remaining in an hotel causing annoyance to other people, although they were not served with liquor there, and it was no doubt the intention of the Legislature to provide against such an occurrence. Of course, the supply of liquor to a drunken man was also permitting drunkenness. In the present case he was satisfied that Poland was beastly drunk in the hotel. It was the duty of a licensee who wished to conduct his hotel properly, and keep it free from suspicion, to order a drunken man out, and, if

necessary, to summon the police to eject him, or he could himself eject him, with the assistance of others if he chose, although the best way with an obstreperous man was to summon the police. The defendant did not od this. He must have known, or at least ought to have known, that the man was in a state of drunkenness; he knew it sufficiently well on his own evidence, to refuse to serve him with liquor. He woueld therefore be convicted. Mr McVeagh, on behalf of the Great Northern Brewery Company, the owners of the hotel, put forward a plea, urging that the license should not be endorsed. The license had already been once endorsed, but a transfer had been applied for from Taylor to a man named Nicholls, and in view of this proposed change counsel asked that there should be no further endorsement. A first endorsement expired after two years, but a second endorsement would operate for five years. His Worship : Is the transfer a bonafide one? Mr McVeagh: Yes, your worship, Taylor will have no further interest in the hotel. Mr McVeagh mentioned that Taylor only became the licensee through marrying the previous licensee and lessee, who was a widow. Mr Mays said Taylor had had plenty of warning. If there was going to be a bona-fide transfer that might do some good, but it .was certainly time that Taylor was out of it. His Worship said the conduct of Taylor was more the of inexperience and carelessness than of wilful evasion of the law. But the man was not fit at all to conduct an hotel. If he endorsed the license, the consequence would be very serious to the lady who held the lease. Having regard to all the facts he thought he would be justified in refraining from endorsing the license. Defendant would be fined £5 and costs.

HOTELS IN SWITZERLAND.

The enormous value of a large tourist traffic to a country is shown by the statistics just published in Switzerland concerning the financial situation of the country within the last fifty-five years. During this period the wealth of the country, not including State property, has risen from 400,000,000 to 000, and of this total no less than twofifths has been acquired by hotel proprietors, whose annual receipts, put into plain figures amount to sums varying from to £6,400,000. Anyone acquainted with Swiss hotel life, and considering the excellent value which the visitor receives for his money, cannot but ask himself how it is “done,” seeing that in almost every other country the outcry of the hotel-owner that he cannot make a living mingles with the outcry of the traveller that hotel-prices are ruinous and hotel life increasingly uncomfortable. The Swiss hotel-keepers are accustomed to go and learn in hotels abroad, then return home, introduce what is best, on the careful economic system which enables them to make a good profit, without the visitor ever becoming aware of anything but the most generous treatment.

ILLEGALLY ON LICENSED PREMISES.

At the Thames Police Court last Monday, Victor Bowdler and Robert Mills were charged by the police with having been found illegally on the licensed premises of the Cornwall Arms Hotel, on the night of September 15. Accused pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given b Constables Beddek and Berry to the effect that on the night in question, at

the hour of half-past eleven, they observed the two accused cross the road and enter the back-yard of the hotel. They followed, and on reaching the yard found Mills knocking at one of the back windows of the hotel, and calling out to the landlord to get up and open the door. The other accused was also in the yard at the time. Statements were made by the accused to the effect that they were not in the yard for the purpose of obtaining drink. His Worship held that on the evidence in the case of Mills it was clear from his actions in knocking, at the window and calling to the landlord that he was there for an illegal purpose, and he was therefore convicted, and fined 5s and costs, but in the case of the other accused there was a certain amount of doubt, and he was therefore cautioned and discharged.

WASTING GOOD BEER.

The law as it stands at present in regard to the confiscation of liquor found in the possession of prohibited persons places the police in a rather invidious position. Sub-Inspector Dwyer, at the Christchurch Police Court recently, asked the magistrate what he was to do with two bottles of “pale ale” which had been found in the pockets of a man against whom a prohibition order was in force. He pointed out that the police had no power to keep them, and they could not give them back to the accused. “Well,” replied Mr Bishop, “I cannot order you to drink them, and the best way to confiscate the beer will be to pour it in the gutter. ”

AUSTRALIAN GRAPES.

In answer to a question in the House the Minister for Customs made the following statement: —Replying on the existing prohibition of Australian grapes, a considerable number of growers in the colony, especially in the North, have gone to great expense in the erection and equipment of glass-houses, and as the sudden removal of all restrictions on the importation of this fruit from Australia would prove absolutely ruinous to many of these settlers, it would probably be found advisable, if the prohibition were revoked, to impose a fairly heavy import duty and reduce it year by year. The matter will receive consideration when the Customs tariff is under review.

WINE MAKING.

The reasons why Australia and New Zealand, with an equally favourable climate, do not produce wine equal to that obtained from the vintage of older countries were explained by Dr. Mason, in the course of a lecture at Wellington. He said the French wine-makers did not rely on rule-of-thumb methods as makers in the colonies did. They employed trained bacteriologists to ensure that fermentation should proceed under the most favourable conditions. The secrets of the cultures by which this was brought about were never passed to any but the principals of firms. He illustrated the point by exhibiting a lantern slide picture of bacteria of a family which had been preserved by a firm of French vignerons for centuries.

A VISITOR’S OPINION.

It was reported from Christchurch last week that in speaking to a Press representative, Mr Arthur Day, who comes in charge of the principal exhibits sent by the manufacuring firms of Great Britain to the Exhibition, expressed his annoyance at learning that no wine or spirit license is to be granted for the

Exhibition. “There is no doubt, he said, “that this will act most detrimentally as regards the attendance. At no former Exhibition that I know of has such a thing ever occurred. I consider it as an infringement of the liberty of the visitors to the Exhibition,. and, indeed, it amounts in my estimation to an insult. Moreover, I regard it in the light of a positive breach of faith with the exhibitors. This regulation should have been made known in the original prospectus, and had this been done there would have been very few applications for space.”

IS IT GAMBLING?

The determination of the police to proceed against any licensee who permits the game known as “devil’s pool” to be played on his premises has caused great dissatisfaction among the billiard-mark-ers of the city, remarked a Dunedin paper. Two licensees have expressed their determination to continue allowing the game to be played, so that the position may be tested in court. It is understood that the action of the police is based on a decision of Mr Justice Cooper under the Licensing Act Amendment Act of 1904. The decision declared “devil’s pool” to be gambling, And here follows an awkward position. If it is gambling in a licensed house it is gambling in an ordinary billiard room, and comes within the scope of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Yet the keepers of billiard rooms other than those of licensed premises have not received notice from the police. As they say in “The Mikado”: “It’s the slip-shod way in which these Acts of Parliament are framed.”

CUSTOMERS IN MOBS.

At the Police Court last Friday, before Mr R. W. Dyer, S.M., Michael Kelly, a young man, pleaded not guilty to having sold beer at Auckland on July 2, without being licensed to do so. Mr Singer appeared for the defendant, and Sub-In-spector Gordon conducted the prosecution. Constable Thomas Kelly sad that on July 22 he was in Albert-street. A friend was with him, and whilst passing a fish shop they were asked to have a drink. The accepted the invitation, and walked down an alleyway to a small kind of bar.

Here drinks were served them, witness paying 2s for four. They had drinks again, paying the defendant 2s as before. Witness then went away and returned 30 minutes afterwards. He had another drink, and shouted four others, which cost him 2s 6d. Mr Singer: Who was with you on this occasion. Witness: There was acrowd unknown to me. Mr Singer: How did you come to go in? . _ , . Witness: I was passing a fish shop, and in front were half a dozen men. One came up and asked if I wanted a drink. Sergeant Moore, who searched the defendant’s premises, said that he found a five-gallon keg half-full of beer, and an empty whisky and punch bottle. In the allevway was a jar full of beer. This jar was covered by a sack. “I might say Your Worship,” concluded witness, “that these men came in mobs. They had their drinks and wnt right away again, so that they might not be caught on the premises.” Another witness corroborated Constable Kelly’s evidence. Mr Singer said that he would now plead guilty. He had pleaded not guilty so that the facts might be brought out. Unfortunately Kelly had a bad record, and when a man came out of gaol it was difficult to find employment, and the accused had taken on this bad job. Kelly did not receive the money for the beer, but another man who employed him. When the gang broke up he went away. He asked that Kelly might be allowed to return to his work as soon as possible. Mr Dyer sentenced the accused to one month’s imprisonment.

DID SHE ?

Why is it, Willie, that you have to stay after school nearly every day?” “ Well, ma, I hate to blow about myself, but I’m beginning to believe the teacher must enjoy bein’ alone with me.”

“Did that palmist tell you anything true about yourself?” “She certainly did. Gefore I’d been there 10 minutes she told me somebody was trying to get my money.” “Was there?” “Yes, she was.”