THE LAW OF "SHOUTING."

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 15 April 1920, Page 2

THE LAW OF "SHOUTING."

• = COUNSEL'S STRONG COM- -'"" MENT. • XIt is still a crime to "shout," and the offender is liable to ',%: anything up to £20. This was v,// emphasised by a case dealt with by F. K. Hunt, S. M., yesterday, at the Helensville Court. A young "digger" of 22, who had acted as barman in a neighbouring country hotel, was charged ~, with permitting treating in the hotel. * Mr Barnaxd, who appeared for the defendant, stated that "shouting" was so openly indulged in everywhere, without interfer- ' . ence, that many people were under the impression the Anti- --M Shouting Regulations were no'v^J longer in operation. They were in fact still in force, the practice i of treating being, however, apparently so winked at by the authorities that there was \^ ground for the common error that £ the regulations were now practically obsolete. Mr Barnard strongly criticised the Pblice Department for selecting an isolated country hotel and aT young soldier —gassed and wounded:pn active service, and not fully alive to the legal position—us a ease for prosecution. " Shouting" went on daily in most hotels, and the police could obtain scores ofl convictions in the city and elsewhere if they choose to do so. !. Either the law in this respect should be enforced impartially, or else amended so as to make treating no longer a punishable offence. Defendant was convicted and t fined £2. The same defendant was also charged with serving a drunken man with liquor at the Kaukapakapa Hotel on March 2nd. The evidence disclosed that an old man had been drinking at the hotel from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., afterwards sleeping in an outhouse. When he awakened he foundthat £15 he had had in his possession, was missing. ; Defendant was fined £5, the magistrate stating he had made the fines light in view of the defendant's youth and inexperience.