BARMAID DISQUALIFICATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 December 1916, Page 7

BARMAID DISQUALIFICATION.

DETERMINING ITS VALIDITY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, December 7. Tlie Supreme Court heard a motion to determine the validity of the regulation providing for disqualification from employment in a similar capacity for a period of sx months of any bar attendant convicted of a breach of the antishouting regulations. After argument, Mr. Justicp Hosking upheld the clause and declined to declare it ultra vires. > An originating summons was brought by Winifred Hac'hott, barmaid, against John Lander, sergeant of police, and the Solicitor-General, asking that the regulation ho declared ultra vires. Plaintiff had been charged in the Magistrate's Court with a broach of the re-, gulations, but no decision was given pending the testing of the penalty clause. Mr. Singer, for plaintiff, relied on the argument that while the Governor-in-C'ouncil had power to frame war regulations ho had no power to inlliet punishment. Mr. Tolo, for respondents, submitted that the disqualification was not part of a penalty, not even part of a conviction. It might have the effect of being a sort of punishment, but lie contended that it was a just precatuionary measure, and simply followed as a consequence of a breach. The Licensing Act contained similar provisions. His Honor, in his judgment, said the disqualilieaton was not an additional penalty, hut rather a disqualification of a certain class of persons, the whole of which class might have been disqualified from following a particular pursuit, if the Govenior-hi-Couneil was of opinion that such a step was necessary or expedient for the security of the public safety or in the interests of the Dominion, or was for the effective conduct of military and naval operations of the country. The framing of regulations was left absolutely to the Go-vernor-in.-Couneil, and it was not for the Court to enquire into the propriety of the regulations. Leave to appeal was given. j