The Standard AND PEOPLES ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 236, 6 January 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLES ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1875.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no wan justice or right.”

There are two subjects which suggest themselves to our notice this morning, as coming within the pale and scope of those that imperatively demand immediate attention being given to them by our local authorities. These are the “Impounding Act, 1867, Amendment Act 1874,” and the “ Municipal Police Act, 1866,” with its several amendments. The changing circumstances of the district, and the extended powers recently conferred to meet those circumstances, require that the Impounding Act should be brought into operation without delay. We believe that the present administration of the old Act, is as fairly carried out as one could expect, but there are many clauses in the new law which, if in force, would be far more satisfactory to the public. For instance, section 38 of the old Act, giving the definition of a proper fence, is entirely repealed, the repealing clause of the Amendment Act being the only part of it now in force. Therefore, there is no authority to define, or object, to what is, or what is not, a substantial fence in deciding claims to special damages for trespass. The new Act provides that an impounder claiming substantial damages, may call on two “ fence viewers,” to examine the condition of the fences enclosing the property trespassed on. They are to inspect the fences, and report on them, certifying whether or not they are substantial within the meaning of the Act, although we fail to discover in what part of the Act “ a substantial fence,” is defined —section 38 being repealed. In a claim for special damages for trespass, the settlement of such a question ought, very properly, to be determined by disinterested parties ; as it stands at present, the poundkeeper has, practically, to take upon himself the responsibility of deciding the point by a nolens volens detention of the amount claimed by way of special damages. Thus it is quite within the scope of possibility for any person to make and recover an arbitrary claim for excessive damages under the old Act which, in all probability, he would not be able to do, under the new one. The whole gistof the amendedActliesinthe protective clauses defining the duties of “fence viewers,” and the public ought to receive the benefit of their services without any further delay.

A case which came before the Resident Magistrate yesterday morning, sufficiently indicates the essential necessity that exists for the public being put in possession of the extended municipal laws by which they are

governed. The case seems to be possessed of features of peculiar hardship. One C. Mack, a recent arrival, was brought up on an information laid by the police, to answer the charge of having held a lottery, or ‘ ■ Art Union,” as is the attractive term, in the Albion Hotel commercial rooms on Friday and Saturday evenings last. The charge was laid under the 17th clause of the Municipal Police Act, 1866, which we quote entire, for the benefit of our readers :— “ If any person establish commence or be a partner or otherwise beneficially interested in any lottery or scheme by which prizes whether of money or of any other matter or thing are gained drawn for thrown or competed for.by lot dice or any other mode of chance or sell or dispose of any tickets or other means by which permission or authority is gained or given to any person to throw for compete or have an interest in any such lottery or scheme or if such person under any pretence or by means of any device sell or dispose of or endeavour to sell or dispose of any lands goods wares or merchandise by means of any game either of skill or chance every such person being duly convicted thereof shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for the first offence and for any subsequent offence besides such penalty shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months provided that this provision shall not apply to any raffle for any work purely of art of which notice shall have been given to the Superintendent if he shall not within one week of receiving such notice prohibit the same by notice posted to the address of the person giving such notice as aforesaid nor to any raffle of a private nature on which point the Justices before whom any case may be brought shall decide.”

The Magistrate, very properly, took a liberal view of the case, a l * it was the first information that bad been laid since the Municipal Police Act was brought into force in Gisborne ; but it afforded an appropriate opportunity for the Bench to enquire why the information was delayed until a stranger came to be taken in ? In the name of the public, we now enquire if this is the first instance that has come to the knowledge of the police since the Municipal Act was brought into force ? We have no desire to fall foul of the authorities in this matter; their duties, particularly in a small town, where licence is both taken and granted, are sufficiently unpleasant even when they receive the stamp of public approbation ; nevertheless, we cannot —according to our notions of impartial justice —rsquare the performance of that duty with the fact that we “Compound with sins, we are inclined to, “ By damning those, we have no mind to.” If the laws are to be enforced, lot it be understood that there is neither fear nor favor in the process. Don’t let it be said that we swallow camels with indifference as to the result, while we pounce upon the poor gnat with a fearful vengeance. It is as well, however, that it should be thoroughly understood how far, and in what direction we may go, and when we may stop. Art Unions, as they have been permitted, are, evidently, no longer admissible, except under certain circumstances, and those circumstances —such for instance as getting the Superintendent’s sanction to hold a “ raffle for any work purely of art ” — can only to be classed among the most glaring evidences of specious—not to say spurious—legislation ; it is nevertheless, the law, and a disgrace to the Statute book that contains it.