THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1882. AN OBSTRUCTIVE OFFICIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2611, 19 August 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1882. AN OBSTRUCTIVE OFFICIAL.

The case heard yesterday against Mr. S. Lawrence in the Resident Magistrate’s Court seems to us to call for more than merely passing notice. As our readers will have seen by the published reports of the case, a charge—most absurd on thofaco of it—was made againat;Mr.Lawrence for selling liqonr without a license. The prosecution, be it remembered, was not instituted by the police, but by Mr Charles Allison, junior, who holds the very responsible and onerous position of Town Clerk of Sydenham. At the outset it may bo as well to also notice that in his official capacity Mr. Allison refused to receive a legal tender of the fee, though Mr. Lawrence was provided with a license to retail wines, spirits, &c., under the hand of the Chairman of the Licensing Committee. He had as much right to do this as he has to ascend the throne of England, his duty being merely that of a receiver of fees. The Chairman of the Licensing Committee, very properly upholding the dignity of the body over which he presides, snubbed the presuming Town Clark, pointing out that under the license Mr. Lawrence could sell irrespective of the Borough Council altogether, after having made his tender. Defeated in this respect, Mr. Allison changes his role, and appears in the character of laying an information against a license-holder for selling liqaor without a license. It is in this latter capacity that wo have a few words to say about our friend. The absurdity, nay more, injustice of such a charge being laid will appear more strongly when we point out that Mr. Allison, as treasurer of the Borough «£ Sydenham, had received fccm Mr. Lawrence the amount prescribed in the Act for a license, had issued a receipt therefor, and, beyond all, had—as was his duty—seen the license itself under the hand of the Chairman of the Licensing Committee. Yet this exceedingly moral citizen of the virtuous borough lays an information on oath against this very person for selling liquor without a license. Surely the force of absurdity can no farther go. If from personal motives of whatever kind an outsider, misled by a report that a certain person has not a license and yet sells liquor, lays an information, there might be some excuse for him. But here wo find the very official, whose duty it is to see the formal document issued as a psrmit to sell, dragging a man before the Court on a charge of breaking the law, which he well knows has not the slightest foundation. It will of cowso

ba urged that by a legal faction it wear supposed that no license waff in existence, but even there we are prepared to Join isane both with Mr, Allison and bin legal adviser. Mr, Button enght to know, and no one better, that the decision of theLicensing Committee under the Act is final. There can ba no review of their proceedings by the Magistrates or any one else. They are instructed by law, with the absolute power within their respective districts, of granting licenses, and not even the Supreme Court itself catr interfere. We assert most confidently that the Bench acted ultra vires in heating the case at all. It should have been at once dismissed, because the Magistrates have no power in the matter of granting licenses, which was the point raised by Mr Button. It was not a prosecution for a breach of the Act, such as serving after hours, neglecting to keep a lamp alight, or any offences like this. It was questioning the power of a Licensing Committee to grant a license, with which the Bench had nothing whatever to do. The license had been granted, it was in existence, and the moment that was produced the whole case fell to the ground, and should at once have bean, dismissed, instead of which evidence is beard, and then, by some peculiar’ reasoning, the Magistrates arrive at the conclnsion which was patent at first, viz., that they have no power to interfere with or review the decision of the Licensing Committee. This, we contend, was amply proved on the face of the license. Mr. Lawrence was charged with selling without a license, and foranswer he produced a permit to do so signed by the legally constituted authority. As the Bench ought to know, this was at once fatal to their jurisdiction in the case, and practically they had no more to do with it than the man in the street. There is but one regret, that, having proceeded so far as they did, the Magistrates had not made the informant pay a little dearer for his amusement than they did. It seems to ns monstrous that a public official, cognisant, as he mast be, of the facts of the case, should, after unsuccessful opposition before the proper tribunal, be enabled to - carry on. what is little short of persecution. Wa do aot blame Mr. Allison as he did for using his best endeavors to prevent a public-house being established close to his property. But having done this before the propar authority, he should be content and not seek to do what cannot but be termed a wrong by dragging a man before the Police Court on a charge which not only had no foundation, but which the Court had no power to deal with at all. However, now that Mr. Allison has discovered that it is rather an expensive amusement, probably he will be satisfied, but we should like to call the attention of the presiding Magistrates to the fact that they are not free freon blame, inasmuch as they entertained and practically dealt with a case which the moat cursory perusal of the Act would tell them was not within their jurisdiction.