HERE AND THERE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, 24 December 1912, Page 21

HERE AND THERE.

We regret to record the death of Daniel Arkell, a well-known Auckland citizen. Twenty-five years ago Mr Arkell was connected with the bottling department of Messrs Hancock and Company’s brewery, but some five years later he went into business cn his own account in Newton Road, as a wine and spirit merchant and brewers’ bottler. Mr Arkell took a keen interest in all municipal matters.

A big gathering of Natives is to be held at Parawanui on December 25, and will be controlled by the Native council. A fine of £5 will be imposed upon any Native introducing liquor into the hapu, “but,” quoth an old Maori warrior to a Press representative, “ sometimes the larrikin brings a bottle under his coat, and they drink on the sly. If he caught, he punished. Only way to catch larrikin is when he gets drunk.”

An amusing incident occurred at .a Whangarei hotel the other evening. A man dismounted from his horse and said that if he was not careful the horse would follow him through. The statement was not taken seriously by ft. number of bystanders. The licensee’s permission was obtained, and on hearing the words, “Come on, comrade,” the horse followed its owner in the front door and walked through the passage, past the bars, and out at .another door.

According to the East Coast “Guardian,” plans have been designed for -extensive additions to the Motu hotel. The timber will all be milled at Motu, and the extensions will include a two-storey structure. Owing to the doubt that has arisen as to the location of the station site, pending the settlement of the route question, the putting of the work in hand has been delayed. * * * '*

At a meeting of a certain public body (says an exchange) an item on the pay sheet was a couple of pounds for whisky. One of the members of the body expressed a certain amount of surprise that the item was put through so badly, and remarked, “Why, on the road board we always put that down as nails.”

During the hearing by the Licensing Dench of the objections to the issue of a permit to sell liquor at the Maropiu races, it was stated that the running track is not fenced off, and •consequently there would be the danger of horses running off the course with risk to the picnickers. Counsel for the applicant, with a touch of sarcasm, asked whether the fact of horses running off the course would be due to the presence of a booth on the ground. Does this mean (asks a North Auckland “Times” scribe), that it is to be inferred that the horses that race at Maropiu are not to be trusted to keep the track if liquor is obtainable, or what does it mean?

A writer in the King Country says that hospitably-minded persons abound in the district, and the impossibility of asking a friend to “come and have one” at the nearest hotel has led to the custom of carrying a bottle in the most convenient pocket. In olden days the hip pocket was generally the repository for small change and the pocket was of suitable dimensions for such purposes. Experience has led to the knowledge that the same pocket is the most suitable for the carriage of the convivial nip, and pockets are -enlarged accordingly. Every competent tailor provides a capacious hip jaocket in every King Country suit, irrespective of orders. When in doubt, a specially competent tailor provides tw’o such pockets. Incidentally, the practice has enriched the vocabulary with the word “hip-pocketise.” In no-license districts down South it is customary for men who partake of the “cup that cheers” to have their overcoats fitted with specially deep poekets in which a bottle of liquor may be stowed without showing ’any outward visible signs of its presence.

Individuals who carry cards into hotels for the purpose of playing for •sport—and money, too —with whosoever they meet, are likely to cause trouble to themselves, and certainly to the licensees. In this connection a word of advice was given by Dr. McArthur, S.M., at Licensing Committee’s meeting on Mon-

day. The committee had under consideration an application for a transfer of a license to a person against whom proceedings were taken recently for allegedly permitting gambling on premises for which he had a temporary license. The information was dismissed, but the magistrate stated that he believed the gambling (card playing) was going on, though not to the licensee’s knowledge. “We would like to urge all licensees to be exceptionally sharp about these people who bring cards in and play games of their own,” said Dr. McArthur. “It leaves a taint behind which takes a great deal of washing out.”

A monkey is not often placed under arrest by the police, but a case is now on record. A man who was arrested for drunkenness in the Mount Cook district recently (says the “Dominion”) had with him a monkey running on a chain that was firmly fixed to his coat. The monkey had necessarily to be taken into custody with its master, and on Monday morning both were convicted and discharged.

“I have never asserted anything so wrong and so foolish as that it is a sin to drink wine; nor have I ever been so uncharitable, and gone so far beyond my legitimate warrant, as to pronounce a syllable of condemnation against those who are called ‘moderate drinkers.’ . . . The question of abstinence or non-abstinence is one which can be settled only by the individual conscience.” — Archdeacon Farrar.

That the Russian mujik should discard his favourite vodka for beer is not a little amazing (says a correspondent of the London “‘Standard”), but it is a salutary change of beverage, which the temperance reformers regard with unalloyed satisfaction as a first step in the right, and grievously desiderated, direction. Latterly, and in ever increasing numbers, the village kabaks in Southern Russia are giving place to beer taverns. The beer is supplied by German breweries in Lae chief provincial centres, and is of a light and nourishing quality. The Russian vodka, the manufacture and sale of which is a Crown monopoly, is admittedly the vilest and most demoralising national drink of any country in Europe. It has for a couple of generations —i.e., since the emancipation of the serfs—-been the veritable bane, physically, materially and morally, of the Russian peasant. As, however, this spirituous poison is a source of Government revenue, its replacement by beer is viewed with undisguised disfavour by the excise authorities. The net revenue derived from vodka of late years has averaged £65,000,000.

A most remarkable piece of evidence was adduced by a solicitor at the Invercargill Police Court recently during the hearing of an adjourned case in which a wife made application for a prohibition order against her husband (says the “Southland News’). The complainant was in the box, and the solicitor for the defendant inquired if witness was a believer in clairvoyancy, otherwise witchcraft, or fortune-telling. After a little persuasion she admitted the fact, and that she had attended lectures by a lady who spoke on the subject. “Didn’t you ask the clairvoyant about your husband?’ “Yes. “Didn’t she tell you to get rid of him, and you have been trying to do that since?” “No, she only said he never treated me as. a wife and never would.” “And as the result of her advice you have been trying to kick him out and drive him to drink?” Witness refused to commit herself, and the cross-examination changed to a discussion as to whether husband or wife was the more addicted to “throwing things.” Says the New York “Times”: — “Prohibition is effective in destroying vested property interests within the Prohibition States, rendering valueless the breweries, distilleries, saloons and their furnisnings. But does this not merely force a realignment of the liquor business across State lines, at great economic loss? Can it be that the dwellers within the vast areas wherein liquor selling is illegal are really drinking less, while the per capita consumption for the whole people has risen so enormously?” 41 # - $ * Much as licensed victuallers may deem it desirable to keep on good terms with the police (remarks the London “L.V. Gazette”), it Is a dangerous practice—and an offence against the law —to supply liquor to constables while on duty. But a case which was heard at Enfield Police Court shows that however strict a licensee may be in this respect, he is liable to be brought into trouble through the action of his barman. It is laid down in law that a license holder is responsible for the acts of his servants, but when they act in direct opposition to his instructions liability cannot apply. Mr Walter Chandler, who has been at the “Holly Bush,” Enfield for eight years, and who is chairman of the Northern Victuallers’ Association, was not likely to run any risk, but a barman who had been in his employ for only two months confessed to putting two bottles of “waste beer” on the top of the wall nearly every night, and it was while these were being consumed by two constables that the inspector surprised them by his presence. The licensee was informed that he would be reported, and reported he was, but the Bench came to the conclusion that guilty knowledge was not proved, and dismissed the summons. The chairman, addressing counsel for the defence said, “You must show that the servant acted ultra vires, and that the publican was not using the blind eye,” and, evidently this was proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates.