The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas, et Praevalebit. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1886. "Five SHillings and Costs."

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1334, 6 September 1886, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas, et Praevalebit. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1886. "Five SHillings and Costs."

We are not in the habit of appearing in Court among the D.D’s (meaning not Doctors of Divinity, but “ Drunk and Disorderlies," nevertheless, we cannot help thinking that there is some justice in the complaint of those local topeis who. from time to time, contribute to Her Majesty’s revenue, that they are somewhat hardly treated, « Five bob ” is customarily regarded as part and parcel of the legitimate expenditure connected with “ a burst,” and the local topers aforesaid make no dt mmr to a fine of that amount, but they contend that they are unfairly handicapped by the words “and costs,” which invariably form .pait of the sentence in the Ashburton Court, and they want to know of what these “costs” consist. Well, it appears that the entering of their names in the charge sheet is regarded as an “ information” lor which the fee is five shillings, and the other two shillings is charged for the order, that is to say, the judgment of the Court, making the “costs ” seven shillings in all. It, thereforeJhapp-ns that practically He lowest fine for inebriety imposed in Ashburton is twelve shillings. The practice followed here of adding costs to the fine obtains in some other places it is true, but we think in but a few places] [ only, the general rule throughout the colony being that the amount of the fine imposed represents the total sum in which the o(Tender is mulcted. The Court has. therefore, evidently discretionary power in the matter and can inflict costs in addition to fine if it pleases, but as the rule in other Courts is to inflict a fine only, and as the “ costs ” are really purely imaginary, it seems to us that it would be better to fall in with the general practice rather than with the exception. If the Magistrate deems that five shillings is an insufficient fine in any case then there is nothing to prevent his fining in the sum of twelve shillings (being the amount of fine and “ costs" as at present), or twenty shillings, or forty shillings, or more if he so please, but let the fine be imposed as a fine and proportioned to the degree of the offeree and not made up of two items, namely the penally plus a larger sum than the penalty for purely mythical expenses. Indeed it is desirable that the practice of the various Courts throughout the color y should he uniform instead of diverse, as at present, and when next the Licensing Act comes under revision it would be well that some rule in th s matter should be explicitly laid down.

•prim Borons'll i.lcr n»inil CouimUtro The peculiar course taken by the Borough licensing Committee at last meeting has naturally elicited considerable public comment and provoked some not altogether complimentary remarks. “ Cjyis,” in a letter to the Mail, is especially severe, describing the Committee’s action in granting extensions in some instances and refusing the like privilege in others as “ without rhyme or reason,” while another correspondent, whose letter was published in our own columns on Saturday, regards “ the decision arrived at by the Corn-

n issionc s as rather a singular one and open for the criticism of all lovers of fair play.” The letter of“Civis” was rather wide of the mark with regard to the specific complaint, common to both writers, and which was the motif of his communication, and as we do not propose on this occasion to take up the subject of the general adrninstration of the licensing law in Ashburion, we will rather take the letter of “A l.overof Fan Play ”as the text of our remarks. Our correspondent very properly points out that the reason (?) given by the Bench

or refusing extensions to the Somerset md Ashburton hotels while granting hem to others is a complete non seqiihit. The Commissioners in so many words admitted that the two hotels mentioned were well conducted by the present licensees, and expressed themselves as “ well pleased with their management,” but nevertheless, refused to grant them the same privileges as other houses in order “ to mark the Bench’s disapproval of the conduct of the houses in the fast." This is punishing the innocent to mark the escape of the guilty, a proceeding whose only merit is that of novelty. Of course it may be argued on the part of the Licensing Bench that houses as well as licensees have characters to gain or to lose, and that the disqualification imposed was laid upon the houses rathet than upon the licensee, but, at least in the one case, the nouse has been sufficiently long under new and good management to have been purged o any sins of the past. The fact is, the Licensing Committee is experiencing the effects of the unwisdom of givin) its reason. Had the decision beer recorded without reasons annexet everyone would have been at liberty u attribute to the Commissioners an considerations he pleased, whicl might have justified that decision, as for example, that it was sufficient fc the public concerned that a certai number of extensions should be grante and that there were good grounds fc selecting the particular houses choser and it will be well for them to bear i

mind on a fulu e occasion the advice once given by an experienced Magistrate to one newly appointed, and who was somewhat diffident as to his own powers as an interpreter and administrator of the law. This was it—“ Never give reasons for your judgment. Ninetynine times out ot a hundred your judgment will be all right, but it’s just as long odds that your reasons will be all wrong.”