HASTY LEGISLATION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3222, 27 October 1881, Page 2

HASTY LEGISLATION.

There are already seen numberless com* plications under the new. Licensing Act, the clauses of which measure are almost a thousand and one, while its practicability yet remains to be demonstrated. We may here remark that the portion of that ponderous and unwieldy statute referring to the closing up of licensed houses at 10 o'clock —or at 12 by an extra payment of £10 a year—is not law at present. The Licensing Committees will first have to be elected after the licensing districts as defined in the Act, have been proclaimed in the • Government Gazette. But in the mean while certain provisions in the new legislative Act are in full force, and will be carried out by the . police. Such, for instancp, as the clause referring to hotel licensees serving—or vending as the Wellington Resident Magistrate ruled it the other day—drinks to persons in a state of intoxication. The 145 th section of the Act runs as follows .—" If any innkeeper permits drunkenness, or any violent, quarrelsome, or riotous conduct to take place on his premises, or sells any liquor to any person already in a state of intoxication, or by any means encourages and incites any person to drink, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence £20, and not exceeding for the second and any subsequent offence £50.' This is very stiff indeed. The provisions for drunkenness are, that for the first offence a fine of no less than ss, nor more than 20s, with an alternative of not more than forty-eight hours incarceration, shall be imposed. A second offence committed within six months of the first, shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding £3, with an alternative of not more than seven - days' whilst an offender for the third offence i within the same period will run the risk of pnnishment of fourteen days' in gaol, with or without the option of a fine not exceeding £5, at the discretion of the Bench. As regards the ' posting' clause in the Act, so to term it, we find that it_ has already been acted upon at Dunedin. # Wo mean the provision made whereby publicans . are rendered liable to a heavy penalty if they supply drunkards ' branded' in the Police Court books by the sitting Magistrates under . certain conditions. This clause reminds us of the old Canterbury Provincial Ordinance enacted in the days of Mr J. E. Eitz-Gerald, which was very similar in character. The law in question was one making it a punishable offence for any publican to supply liquor to men gazetted out—oi these places of entertainment certainly—by the order of a Magisterial Bench. Under the present Licensing Act, any licensee serving with liquor for one year 'after due notice signed by two Justices that he should not do so,' any person whom the Bench has reason to so ostracise, is liable to be fined £10. An unfortunate fellow called William Alexander was * pinned' by the Dunedin Bench the other day under this new clause and gazetted out of public bars for twelve months. The notice 6erved by the police upon every hotelkeeper in the town was as follows —no photographic likeness enclosed, it may be remarked : — ' We, G. -E. Eliotfc and R. Patterson, two of BTer Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand, hereby forbid any licensed person to sell to William Alexander any liquor for the space of one year from this date. This prohibition is given under clause 167 of the Licensing Act, ' G. E. Emott, J.P. * B. Patterson, J.P. Against the absurdity of its being deemed possible to carry into practical effect this unworkable, if well meaning clause in the Act, a host of protests have since been sent to the local papers. As the subject is one of more than usual importance, we will quote from these remonstrances. 'An hotelkeeper ' writes as follows :— ' I have to-day been served with a from the police, signed by two Justice** of tho Peace, not to serve one William Alexander with liquor for one year ; and turning up the Act, I find I am liable to be fined ten pounds if I do. Now, Bir, as I don't know the above-named person from the man in the moon I think this rather a good joke. I think the least they could have done would have been to show the gentleman round and let

us have a look at his beaming countenance. Fancy, sir, such an idiotic Act as being in force in England, and a hotelkeeper in London getting a notice not to serve John Smith with liquor for one year. If this is a specimen of the work which occupied about one-half of the recent session, truly we paid dearly for our legislation.—lam, &c.' Further on, some one complains that ' upon visiting some of the hotels before being served he had his name demanded, and had to give an assurance that he was not William Alexander. Upon inquiring the reason of this he found that the hotelkeepers had been served with notices not to serve any person of that name for one year, the above-named gentleman being committed to remain dry for that period.' We very much fear that this clause of the Licensing Act—and many others as well —will do much to show that in practice the Honse was exceedingly hasty and considerably foggy when attending to its legislative digestion.this year. In this particular instance, for example, how will any publican know who is who, who he or she is the Police Court may have distinguished as one who should be prevented from being served at public bars ? One of the jokes of the hour in Dunedin just now is, we believe, that every one asking for a glass of beer is promptly asked what may be his name. The real culprit probably gets his usual liquor under the name of Brown, Jones, or Robinson, and he rejoices to see how easily coaches and fours can be driven through. Acts of Parliament in the southern hemisphere. These much maligned individuals, the Victuallers, are set by the ears with their unknown customers, Inw outrage" ous £10 penalty staring them in the face and causing many sleepless nights to. their employes. This is modern legislation with a vengeance. We very much fear that since Provincialism became extinguished the legislation of the country has not improved. Very muoh to the contrary.—Christchurch Telegraph.