The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1883. LEGAL BLUNDERS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1091, 5 April 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1883. LEGAL BLUNDERS.

Mr F en ton of the Temuka ilotel was fined £5 last Monday for supplying drink on the 11th of March last. The evidence was to the effect that one of MrFontai's boarders invited two of his friend into the hotel and got the barman to supply them with drinks, for which the boarder paid. They were in a room near the bar when the constable went in, and there was nothing to show that they had been supplied with drink excepting some empty glasses which were near them, Everything was perfectly quiet, and the constable himself said that Mr Fentoa was conducting the hotel very well. If this was the first cause for complaint he had to make against the hotel we think that Constable Morton might well have overlooked it. The law never contemplated that hotelkeopers should be punished for such a trivial offence as that for which Mr Fenton has been fined. The law is very stringent as regards Sunday trading, but the object is to prevent drunkenness and wholesale traffic in liquor, and the constable who observes that rule does his duty. But the constable who assumes the role of a Paul Pry, and, slinking in by the back door, infers from the fact of seeing some empty glasses that liquor has been consumed, and summonses an hotelkeeper without any greater cause, exceeds his duty to a degree which is termed ' officiousness.' Constable Morton is a very efficient officer, but he certainly appears to have lacked discretion in this case, and to have but a poor idea of where he should draw the line. But if the constable was punctilious in discharging his duties, the Resident Magistrate who heard the case was extremely loose in his interpretation of the law. Clause 156 of the Licensing Act says :—' Nothing in this Act shall preclude an innkeeper from selling such liquov at any time to bona fide travellers or persons lodging in his I house.' It was shown that the man to whom the drink was sold in this case was lodging in the house, and why, therefore, was Mr Fenton fined? If Mr | Fenton had had a lawyer to defend him | be would have escaped, but as he had not the ' rule of thumb ' law prevailed. Still Mr Beswick would have been merciful if he knew how. After convicting Mr Fenton he said he would not record the conviction on his license. In tiiis he was quite wrong. He had no option but to record the conviction on the license, and in not doing bo he violated the law. Part of clause 155. under which the information was laid, says : ' Any conviction for an offence against this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted.' This gives no discretion to the magistrate. If he convicts he must record the conviction on the license.' The question then arises ' Is a magistrate who thus blunders in the simplest cases fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities of administering justice?' In this case what he ought to have done was laid down before his eyes in the very clause under which the information was laid. It was not necessary for hi.n

to consult legal authorities, and yet he did exactly the opposite to what the law reqaired of him. Whether it was ignonnce or carelessness, or both, caused him to fall into such an egregious error as this we know not, but one thing is sure, and that is that we would not like either our life, our liberty or fortune to be dependent on the judgment of a magistrate who blunders thus in such simple cases. The moet important function of the Government is the proper administration ot the law. It is useless to make good laws if they areadministeied in a blundering manner like this, and the State in which proper attention is not paid to this matter, must be badly governed .