PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 148, 30 June 1870, Page 2

PUBLICANS' LICENSES.

At the adjourned licensing meeting yesterday, a new license (Was granted to the Occidental Hotel. In tha circumstances nothing else could have happened, and the Justices were shut up to acceding to the application. But a s attention has been directed to the transaction in our columns, we desire to briefly review tho position we havo taken. In a local paragraph in our issue of the 2dth instant, in referring to the subject in the most casual way, we used the expression regarding the petition in opposition as " having failed in some way to be lai I before the Bench." In our succeeding issue appeared a letter signed " Lex," and ao the paternity of it has since been owned in open Court, we have no hesitation in sayi„g now that the writer of that letter was Mr. Joy. In Mr. Joy's letter he states that " a petition was laid before the Bench on that occasion, and duly marked by Mr. Cunningham, clerk of the court ; but their worships, the chairman and justices, in their then discretionary jurisdicdiption, declined to hear it read." On referring to the reporl of the day's proceedings in the column . of a newspaper, we found no mention of an opposition petition, and the case had a serious aspect. On the one hand, we had the current h lief that no petition had been presented, although it had been placed in the hands of Mr. Joy for that purpose ; oii the other hand, we had the express assertion of Mr. Joy that it had been presented, and refused to be heard by the magistrates. Here was a caso demanding the intervention of the Press. Had the current rumour been true, had Mr. Joy betrayed the cause of his clients, he- denerved to be stripped of his gown. hud the assertion of Mr. Joy himself been correct, that the magistrates refused to hear the petition, they should be hunted and hooted from the seat of judgment. The case ' demanded enquiry ; we said so, and we re-assert it, and not all the legal bluster in New Zealand will lead us to retract it. That enquiry has been afforded ; mists and mystery nave disappeared, and none should be more pleased than Mr Joy him sol f that the case had been fearlessly, stated. We were in error in stating that the petition had not been presented ; Mr. Joy was in error in stating that " their worships, the chairman and justices, in their then discretionary jurisdiction, declined to hear it read." The petition was presented by Mr. Joy, and it was read by the magistrates, and we regret that any mystery should have seemed to hang around the thing at all. After the testimony that has been given, regarding Mr. Joy's action in the matter, and especially, from the lips of his opponent in the transaction (Mr. Wynn), we sincerely believe Mr. Joy acted faithfully and to his very utmost in the cause of his clients; and just as sincerely do we regret that any remarks which we have made, or been the vehicle in making, should have given him annoyance. The fact, as it now appears, is this: — The petition was presented to the Bench by Mr. Joy, who was proceeding with his arguments when Mr. Wynn,, who has generally bis weather eye open, in the most artless manner in the world, presented a view of the future ." Occidental Hotel," with which the Bench became so captivated that Mr. Joy and his, petition were nowhere. This explains wholly the erstwhile intricate-looking question. The Court was so

taken up with the magnificence that is about to rise in Vulcan Lane, that Mr. Joy, in the most natural annoyance in the world, resented the apparent neglect, and wrote to us, that'the Bench declined to hear his petition.'-- While, from the defective, nature of the present Licensing Act, and-its inability to cheek, the present surplusage of public-houses which is tA curse of this city, the Bench was absolute' - - eluded from refusing the license, espeei presence of the gorgeous "landscape" vie-.. Occidental Hotel. On yesterday Wr. Wynn spoke well, laid it on us with* no little severity, but we ■ .1miredhim. Mr. Joy had been his opponent in the transaction and his stepping forward in hi', opponent's defence, and dealing such vigorous blows, was generous and manly.. - It was not required, however. The whole case had a simple explanation, and the inquiry which we provoked called that explanation forth ; and it is needless to say that not the famtest suspicion of unfairness attaches to Mr. Joy, and Iwe think that Air. Wynn might have fairly i left it to our right feeling to acknowledge this; but while really admiring Mr. Wynn's attack on us, we think it was not wholly in good taste to refer to a former case in which the attacked was his own client. It was not required by the case of his friend Mr. Joy, and can only be attributed to an exepss of zeal. As for Mr. Morrow, who presided in the Court yesterday, we would respectfully hint to him that he would have consulted his own dignity and the dignity of the Court more by restraining , his exuberant eloquence. Mr. Wynn. was doing very well, and did not require Mr. Morrow's interjaculatory aid. Gentlemen can settle their own quarrels without his interference, and we would recommend Mr. Morrow the next time any matter of importance comes before him on the Bench to put a pitch plaister on his mouth, as a close mouth shows a wise head ; and he has heard, no doubt, of Paddy, who was said to have never opened his mouth but he put his foot in it. Mr. Morrow might have obserred the more dignified position tsiken by his two brother justices, Messrs. Naughton and Ritchie, in relation to a matter that was not under the judicial jurisdiction of the Bench. Mr. Morrow's expansive and statesmanlike idea 3on the suppression of intemperance by licensing new houses, " for the purpose of putting down other low places in the neighbourhood," show that Mr: Morrow is fitted to grace a higher sphere than the Auckland Police Court, and we think he would shine in Par-

Ii anient,

To Mr. Joy we cordially aud cheerfully tender the amende honorable. We were in error, and it is manly to confess it—an error to which we were mainly led by Mr. Joy's own letter, " Lex," in which he stated that the magistrates had refused the petition. Wo regret that Mr. Wynn should so far have miscalculated our right feeling as to threaten prosecution for libel; and while we shall not indulge in braggadocio, and hurl back defiance, we have perfect confidence that both Mr. Wynn and Mr. Joy will give us credit for good faith when we say that we have not been influenced by this threat, but solely by a sense of what was due to Mr. Joy. The case had the aspect of requiring ripping open ; and in a similar case, if public interests demanded it, we should do the same again. " We are in the place where we are demanded of conscience to speak the truth, and the truth we'll speak, impugn it whoso lists."