HOTEL’S LOST GLORIES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 1002, 20 May 1909, Page 21

HOTEL’S LOST GLORIES.

VICISSITUDES OF THE RICHMOND STAR AND GARTER. For the second time within two years the Star and Garter Hotel, Richmond, was offered foi- sale by auction on Tuesday afternoon at the Mart, London, following the sale of the furniture of the hotel three months ago. There was no bid, however. It is just one hundred years since the Star and Garter, was reopened, after being for five years left to decay. Perhaps some clever hotel-keep-er may find a good augury in that circumstance. In 1809 Christopher Crean, who had been the Duke of York’s cook, became proprietor of the hotel, even then seventy years old, and he succeeded in making it a favourite resort of the period—the period of bucks and dandies, of heavy gambling and quick quarrels, of fourhour dinners and wonderful feats in the consumption of port. The popularity of the hotel continued throughout the century. Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort, Louis Philippe, Napoleon 111., and the Emperor Maximi.ian were among its many royal patrons. In the sixties and seventies the Star and Garter atta'ned the zenith of its fame. Thackeray mentioned it more than once in his novels; Meredith made Richard Feverel talk to Bellona there; and Mr. W. E. Norris makes it the scene of some of his cleverest chapters. But the real revealer of the charms of the Star and Garter was “ Guida.” Who can forget that page in “ Under Two Flags ” in which the water party at Richmond, who pay seven guineas apiece for their dinner, are pelted with brandy cherries by Zu-Zu, have their best cigars “ thrown ” away half smoked by pretty pillagers,” and listen to Laura Leias singing a barcarolle? And who does not remember that even more dramatic scent at the Star and Garter in which Beauty meets Lady Guenevere? —Daily Mail. VOTING AT LICENSING ELECTIONS. ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY A PUBLICAN. AN IMPORTANT DECISION. Mr. D. Thomson, S.M., delivered an important and interesting judgment at Palmerston North last week in the

case in which Michael Moynihan was charged with breaches of the Licensing Act by issuing directions how to vote to electors at Shannon, on the day of the Licensing Committee election, March 9, 19 09. Mr. Cooper appeared for defendant, and Mr. C. A. Loughnan for the police. The following facts were admitted: —That an election for a Licensing Committee took place on March 9, at Shannon; that the polling booth was properly constituted; that Frederick Thomson was an elector; that defendant handed him a card with directions how to vote, when he was on his way to the polling booth; that candidates for election were the same as printed on the card, and the voting paper was an ordinary form as specified in the Legislature Act, 190 8; that Thomson voted at the election immediately after receiving the card.

The informations were laid under Section 15 7 of the Legislature Act, and the first question raised was as to whether that section could be invoked at all. It dealt primarily with offences at elections of members of Parliament while the election at which the alleged offence was committed, was for a Licensing Committee, under the Licensing Act, 1908. The last Act, however, by Section 44, provided that “ Every such elector shall be conducted in the same manner as elections of members of Parliament.” It was contended by the prosecution that these words incorporated the whole of Part HI. of the Legislature Act, headed: “ Regulations of Elections,” except such sections as were manifestly excluded by reason of other provision having been made by the Licensing Act, as, for example, the provision for fixing the day of the election. The procedure in cases of disputed elections, etc., sections dealing with offences, and the maintenance of order at elections, were in Part HI-, and it was submitted that, if they did not apply to elections of Licensing Committees, it would be no offence to interfere with electors in a polling booth, or even to commit personation. On the other hand it was contended that the Licensing Act showed plainly that it was not intended to incorporate Part 111 of the Legislature Act generally for, if it had been so intended, Sections 45 and 46, providing for the notification of the result of an election in like manner to an election of a member for Parliament, and providing for a public half holiday, would not have been necessary, as they were already provided in Part 111. Also, it was asked: Must there be a second ballot in certain circumstances? Had every candidate a right to free use of public schoolrooms as provided in the Legislature Act? Must every candidate furnish a return of expenses? These questions, it was submitted, showed the improbability of the words in Section 4 4 having the meaning sought to be put to them. It was further submitted that Courts would not hold an act to be a criminal offence unless the Statute, in clear and unequivocal language, stated it to be so. His Worship held that the words of Section 4 4 of the Licensing Act were not sufficient to incorporate Section 157 of the Legislature Act. He agreed with defendant’s counsel that, even where it was possible to interpret an ambiguous section so as to involve a criminal offence, yet if the section would bear a reasonable interpretation without doing so, the latter interpretat’on would be adopted by the Courts. His Worship could conceive of no reason why the Act complained of in the present instance should be forbidden in a Parliamentary election, and allowed in a Licensing Committee election, but the only question for him to consider was what the Legislature had said on the subject. It seemed ijhat the words in Sectan 44: “Every election shall be conducted in the same manner as elections of members of Parliament ” only

referred to the acts of the Returning Officer The section did not say that the conduct of all persons in a Licensing Committee election should be the same as if it were a Parliamentary election, but simply that the election should be conducted in the same manner. That, his Worship took to mean, was that the electing should be conducted by the Returning Officer according to the same procedure. Both informations would be dismissed, and, as the question was purely a legal one, with costs £2 2s.