The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1882.

Temuka Leader, Issue 9424, 29 June 1882, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1882.

A DOUBTFUL CONVICTION. M.n Lkokahd Tombs is at last out of the clutches of the law. About the 12th of April last sports were held in \ paddock adjoining Mr Tombs' hotel ut Arowhenua, and on that evening he gave a ball in Ins house to his friends and neighbors. Mi Tombs did not obtain an extension of his license on that occasion, and the result was that he vras summoned for keeping his house open after 11 o'clock at night. But he had excellent reasons for not obtaining the necessary certificate of extension. The district had been proclaimed under the New Licensing Act. The power of the commissioners had passed away, and the newly-elected committee had then neither met nor commenced to perform their functions. There was no one from whom Mr Tombs con Id have obtained an extension of his lioeiidc. and if this was not a good excuse for him it was not far from it. But the police summoned him, and ever since his case has been before the Court. The hearing of the case on the first occasion was one of those ridiculous exhibitions which is bringing the administration of justice into contempt in this district. The police stated that they saw glasses with some sort of .drink in them, and when the question, arose as to whether Mr Tombs supplied chinks to his guests free, or obtained payment for them, Mr Mendelson said " Oh, we know very well drinks were not given away for nothing." Now a school-boy ought to know thai a ni n gic:|t ; a i'-•;!> bouu-'J to ' en in i.' In h, ■Ci.'ll'dlisinil ;0!1 --Wi'Di I< ,, <L!-•-nionv duly. Kwii if in l knew pcrtcM.! v ; wol! th:it <! tvriiiin lliiii : l; Wt'l'.i ih!<:. he oughtnotc&keitintoconsideration unless it i's sworn on oath before him. Why then should Mr Mendelson " know perfectly .well that drinks were not given away for nothing '" Why should he assume that they were not, when there ! was not one scintilla of evidence to show it ? .is Mr Mendelson so ignorant of the simplest part of his duty as not to know this ? Or docs he think the pubb'c so extremely stupid that they cannot understand that the magistrate who jumps at conclusions in such a fashion as this is a very dangerous member of socieoy. There was nothing extraordinary in Mr Tombs giving his friends drinks for nothing. We dare say it is not the first time he did so, although it may be very extraordinary for Mr Mendelson to do so. But the magistrates, Messrs Barker and Mendelson, disagreed on MiTombs' case. i7O far as we can leavn Mr Barker was for acquittal and Mr Mendelson for conviction. After repeated adjournments, considerations and re-considerations, a third justice, our intellectual Resident Magistrate,was called in, the evidence was taken afresh, and Mr Tombs was fined 40s and costs, it was, no doubt, very satisfactory to Mr Mendelson to find that his opinion was upheld, and we make a great mistake if the expression on his countenance, as he heard the sentence pronounced was not produced by a feeling of this kind. But we really do not think he need be so proud of it, Tho Resident Magistrate's handling of the case was so clumsy that he failed to satisfy us that ho knew much about it. Mr Tlamersley urged that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. He argued that when two Ju?-

tices of the Peace disagreed they must adjourn to call in a third justice, and quoted chapter and verse which proved this. The two Justices in this case had i not adjourned to call in a third Justice, but had reserved their decision, which makes a great deal of difference in a point of la-TT. Mr Beswick quite pooh-poohed such a trifling difference ; points of law were nothing to him. Again, he wanted to endorse the conviction against Mr Tombs on his license, but was shown by Mr Hamersley that lie could not do so, and the way he got out of the difficulty was very amusing. Of course it would not do for I him to show that he was so ignorant of law as not to know that the conviction could not be endorsed on the license, and so he passed it off by saying that as the defendant had got a new license under the new Licensing Act it would not affect him, and so he would waive the point. Why did he not say, like a man, "Quite right Mr Hamersley. It cannot be done." Simply because he had not the moral courago to admit his ignorance. And now for the conviction itself. As already shown there was no one from whom Mr Tombs could have obtained an extension of his license, an:l the question here arises, is a man to be punished for non-compliance with a law which is not being administered ? Let it be remembered now that the old Licensing Ordinances were repealed, and the new Act, though in force, was not being administered, because the Committee had not met and had not appointed a chairman. If there had been a Committee Mr Tombs would, no doubt, have obtained an extension, but there was not, and we now ask again was it right to punish him for not complying with a law which had not its machinery in operation to enable him to comply with it? "We think, to say the least of it, that it is very doubtful I whether he did break the law at all, and I that any sensible man would have given him the benefit of the doubt. We do not believe that it was ever contemplated that people should suffer, or that the usual course ot business should 1)3 suspended during the time that there was j no one to give effect to the Licensing ' Act. Our readers will remember that a similar difficulty arose in Wellington. We believe it was at the Hutt Park Pwices that some person wanted a license for a publican's booth, but the Licensing Committee, just as in the case of Mr Tombs, was not in existence to grant it. and the only way the Colonial Treasurer saw out of the difficulty was to instruct the police not to prosecute the person who had the booths. The cases are exactly similar. The Wellington man wanted his license extended to the Park races ; Mr Tombs wanted it extended while a ball was being held in his house, The police are instructed not to interfere in the one place—the magistrates punish the man in the other. Why is this discrepancy? Simply because those who directed matters in the first-named piaee 1; a rl coin in on-sense, an I trios,-.-, who directed thcin here hud not. Mr Ms*nd«d<on need n.-t !'*!<". bH\ ['fid--- in having his opinion upheld :n in;» ease. I because it is quite evident any man of ! common-sense would not have done it. I But Mr Barker may be congratulated j on the stand he took, and we venture to ; say .that, nine-tenths of our readers I would rather by far be in his posii tion than in that of Mr Mendelson, I tven though his opinion is upheld by our intellectual Resident Magistrate. . -«. Ai'.out two months ago Mrs Gibbs took a summons out against her lmsj hand to compel him to contribute i towards the support of herself and her children. That summons was not served until Mrs Gibbs appeared before j the Court about a week ago, and represented that she could not support her children any longer without getting assistance Irom their father. The Court ordered the summons to be served at once, and the order has since been complied with. Now, we want to know why was the service of that summons delayed ? Because the man could not be found. Is it not very remarkable that he was found immediately after the Court ordered it ? It is also a remarkable fact that one of the Magistrates which constituted that Court said that it would be of no use summoning the man as he had filed. We have already poitcd out the absurdity of this, so we need not refer again to it. But we may point out that it is another remarkable fact that Gibbs was lot go a?ain, after having been so long wanted, tor another fortnight. When Gibbs was brought up last Monday the Resident Magistrate asked whether there was any likelihood of the parties agreeing, so thas he might adjocrn the

case to g'"ve them an opportunity of doing so, but Gibbs told him there was not the slightest. Still this emphatic reply did not do ; he adjourned the case. What is the meaning of all this ? Was it not sufficient for him to be told that it was no good to adjourn it ? Was it not enough for Mrs Gibbs and her children to have been waiting for the last two months, without putting off the case for another fortnight ? What is to happen to the children in the meantime? How are they to obtain food and clothing? What is to prevent Gibbs from leaving the colony in the meantime f We dare not publish all we hear said about this case until the law of libel is amended. Really things are getting so queer in the way in which justice is being administered in this district that it is high time some steps were taken in the matter. None of us knows the moment we may have occasion to seek the protection of the law, or account for some of our doings, and it is not a pleasant reflection for us to doubt whether justice will be done to us. * THE RABBIT NUISANCE.

A meeting wad held some time ago in Geraldine, to consider, amongst othei tilings, tde desirability of bringing the district under the Rabbit Nuisa.ice Act, and it was decided not to do so, as tho number of rabbits at present in the district did not warrant such a step being taken. We believe that Mr C. G. Tripp some time ago brought the matter before lho County Council, and that that body adopted a similar course. We hav« always great respect for any conclusions arrived at by any body of men assembled together to discuss any subject,for though they may not be always right they may have good reasons for the course they adopt, But we cannot understand how full consideration could have been given to this subject and such conclusions come to. That there are rabbits in this district must be admitted, and that they increase with wonderful rapidity is alio an undoubted fact. Would it not then be better to keep them down before they increase, than try to exterminate them when they get very numerous? The rabbit pest has ruined people in other districts, and though every effort is being used to exterminate them, they seem to be only increasing.' The Otago Daily Times says : —" During the year 18Slj 8,514,G58 rabbit skins, of the declared value of £54,774, .were exported from New Zealand, and yet, we believe the number of rabbits remaining shows no appreciable diminution, though besides those skinned vast numbers must have been destroyed by poison. Assuming the number of skins exported to xepresent a twelfth of the total number of rabbits in the colony, we have the amazing result that a hundred millions yet remain to be destroyed ! How many ferrets, polecats, and other : natural enemies' will it take to clear off an army like this, or even to keep]dowu its enormous natural increase? Some tune ago we published an ilem of news from invercargill to tho effect that ther New Zealand Meat Preserving Company's Work there were closed owing to poison having been hud in the rabbit districts. During the sixty days the worki were in operatiou 300,000 rabbits were ; weivpfi. as many <■».? 11,000 being re- ; clival in urn- d;v. "i'Uh Cunp*.ny paid, , dio-in-' vli.': B i. .vvfy day*. (><i rabid i:< a<~ the r>' !''• ui i''_'.••'."' !"'i lu-iiiii:. : md if ;?. s-.ud a : inuiiy more wo aid have buen ru» ceived only for the railway charges being to high. If this is not sufficient to convince anyone that the rabbit pest is a thing it is very desirable to avoid, we think that it ought to be, and that the sooner steps arc taken to prevent its iv.~ crease in this district the better. There is nothing very dreadful in bringing the Act iuto force. It merely means the levying of an annual rate of one farthing per acre, and holdings of 120 acres are not liable to pay more than two shillings and six ponce per annum. The money thus raised would go towards defraying expenses incurred in the administration, of the Act; that is, in exterminating rabbits. It wonlcl be far better, we think, to pay that small sum now than wait till a necessity for it arises—for rise it must.