ANTI-SHOUTING.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16163, 18 March 1918, Page 6

ANTI-SHOUTING.

..WAR.REGULATION TO BE . AMENDED. A provision in tho War Regulations in the case of a hotel bar attendant being convicted under tho treating clallse edifies with it a disqualification for six months from omployment in any capacity itt.an hotel. This punishment wii9 felt under the eirctttastartces tb bo far tob drastic (6ays tile Wellington "Post")- A deputation froih tho Hotel Workers' Union recently waited upon tho Altohiey-GchehU, and requested that the maximum fine bo reduced from £'100 to £'10, and tiiitb the disqualification Avitii rospoct to deployment -be removed. ine GdV® meat has, as a result of turthef cdn* ; sideratioh of tho matter, agfdSa fo give Magistrates discretionary pfifrer as to whether the loss of employilfint shall follow upon a conviction. Mr E. Kennedy, secretary of the Wellington Hotel and itestaoitofc Workers' Union, has received tIW following letter from the Hon. Sir Ffiiitu Bell. Attorttey-G&neVal: ' 'Wellington, Mttrch 13th, IOIS.. : |Sir,— Referring tb tho tioris made. to me by. tho. deputation » from the Wellington Hotel and Bcbtaurant Workers' Unibh on the iiib- • ject of the War Regulations as t° treating,' I have now to infofifi yon, « that tne.. representations ' have b&ofl fully considered. y <- I am unable to alteration of the existing regulations ifi any bilt one respect. I think , thit to® provision absolutely, disqualifying ftflW employment or service in any capacity , in. licensed premisos upon a first conviction creates a difficulty, sinco that part of the penalty leaves 66 <Jpportu-: ftity to the Magistrate for .discretion between aggravated and iflinW offenccs. Cabinet has, therefore; ujWB my recommendation, approved that the regulation be altera! so as td pfo- . vide that such disqualification shall foilbw upon • conviction for a first offenc® only if the Magistrate, in his disofe- : tion, deems it proper to add such a«qualification to the firio. Upon .a ; second conviction of tho same pers&n . for a similar ofFence tho amended regulation will not allow such discretion.— I have, etc., H. D, Boll." Mr E. Kennedy has sent the following reply to the Attorney-General'* letter:— .

"Wellington. March 16th, 1918. "Dear Sir, —1 beg to acknowledge tho receipt of your letter of thd 1&& inet., with reference to the subject of War Regulations. "We have to thaiik you for th 6 mercy that you are prepared to mGte to as. This means that we still hi'vfl ' to suffer unduly under the said reflations. "Will the pioposed umendniont to tho War Regulations give to the b«attondabts recently fined for affe asrairist such regulations on opportunity of applying for a robearing of their cases, as to whether they should havo to undergo the banishment of employment for tho six months or not. The rases I have itt mind are those of Middlnlon CCahtl)riiL'?n Hotel), Hanl<W (Royal Onk Hotel) t Miss Franc" (Clarendon Hotel), who havo qn/y bofO . put out for a short time previous w ~ date of ligation to you? We shoflW bo thahkf'il if you would consider th» ; - point of the matter for a rehearing;,jf> ps to allow of tho determining MflgiSj tratn deciding s"? to whether he shdiiM t'i t.he.ie bir attendants n of rbn balance "f the six months' art" fMniifi'-ilinri,—Yours faithfully, .*• Kennedv."