THE LICENSING MUDDLE AGAIN.

Evening Star, Issue 3477, 15 April 1874, Page 3

THE LICENSING MUDDLE AGAIN.

There was heard before Mr Beetham, 8.M., at Queenstown last week, 1 a charge brought against Mr J. I*. Tully,' licensee of Powell’s hotel there, of permitting gambling in his licensed house. It came out in evidence that *• yankee grab ” had been played in the house by a number of men ; and charges of “palming”- the dice were made against Drake, of betting notoriety, and some others. The brojee dpiyn, as the decision pf the jnagistrate, which is given below; shdws. The contention of the defendant’s counsel was that as his client was not licensed under tb© Act of 1873, h© could not b© con-

victed under the ordinance of 1865 ; further a ?i t^e J defend^ nt waa not present when the alleged gambling took place, he could not be said to have knowingly permitted it. On the 10th' judgment was delivered, the magistrate's decision being thus reported in the ‘Mail—

Mp Beetham said that fie fyid dealt with the 'objections' by counsel. He held that they were very important ones, Clause 38 of the Ordinance read, “Iso person holding a general license or a bottle hcenae shall permit or suffer gambling or pla\ ing at any game of chance in or upon his house or premises,”, while Clause 6 of the new Licensing Act read as follows; —“ No person, unless duly licensed under this Act, shall sell any alcoholic liquors, or permit the same to be sold by any other person on bis behalf under a penalty of not over ' 60 for each offence.” Under this Act he held that the defendant was unlicensed. In fact, it appeared to him very clear that none of the hotels had any license at all, and he could not therefore enforce the provisions of the Ordinance. The case would therefore be dismissed. He deto make a few remarks outside this decision. Hotelkeepers must not run away I? 1 ,, I'h® Idea that consequently they could run not, and do as they liked They were still under the supervision of the police if they misconducted their houses. They stood in the light of sK grog sellers for the next few days, until the Licensing Court met, 'ihev were therefore answerable to the law, and as long as they respected the law probably no fftsps would bo taken against them by the

authorities, Notwithstanding his decision he would remark that there was no doubt that the charge of gambling had been proved, and if the Act had allowed of it, it would have been his duty to have inflicted a penalty. At the same time he would observe that a good deal of extraneous matter had been produced during the hearing of th case—such as Mr Powell’s “palming the dice.” as it was styled. He personally did not believe Mr Powell had been guilty of cheating. He thought everyone who knew him, aud the way the house was conducted when he was the landlord, would never for a moment imagine that he was guilty of the alleged unfair practice. His own opinion was that neither Mr Tally nor Mr Powell ■was guilty of such and no proof hud been shown that they were so. As far as that part of the case went there was no stain upon their character. Ho had carefully gone over the evidence.—Case dismissed.