THE LICENSING MEETING.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 214, 15 June 1872, Page 3

THE LICENSING MEETING.

The following letter from Mr L. W. Rees appeared in the Herald of yesterday. We le-p.ibb'sh it and the Editor’s notesj thinking they will be read with interest : ' .v Sir, —Having read your leader of this morning on Licensing Justices, I desire, with your permission, to give the public a somewhat different reading of the law than that contained in your co’umns. In the first place, I suppose that yon point to Mr R. Graham as the “ one justice who took part in the proceedings, and who was disqualified under the Act.” If so, w>ll you, or any member of the public, take pioceedings agamst Mr Graham under the 51st section of the Licensing Act, 1871 ? That step will easily test the matte.'; but if you will allow me to make a suggestion, you will fiist provide the funds to pay Mr Gialiam’s cosis, as you will be defeated. In the second place, you state that “ these magistrates re-heard those applications which had been refused in April last, and in each case granted a licence; in other woids, they did that which they had no authority under the law to do.” This is not true ; some, only, of the licenses were granted, otheis were refused. You go on further to remark

that on appeal to «he Supreme Court the licences so granted would be quashed, and you ask feelingly, “ It would render him (i.e., the publican) liable to prosecution and annoyance and loss through no fault of his own ; in which case, who would compensate him ?’’ Ah, who indeed ? You say further,And this is no random opinion of ours. It is good law, founded on competent legal adv'ce." Si”, in my opinion, it is nether good law nor law at all ; and I wi’l make bold to piedict that lie who prosecutes any of the persons that yesieiclay obtained hcences, even although supposed by the gent’eman who gave to you the above opinion, w'H be cast in cosis fist. and aue-wards made to pay damages in an action for malicious prosecution. And, sir, who will then compensate h’'m ?

You go on fuither to state that the Justices who sat yesterday should have known the law, that the different counsel engaged have shown to you that they are not above misleading the Bench to gain tbe ; r clients’ cause, and that the Justices were Rmeaiened with a mandamus. Sir, the Justices, whether they knew the Jaw or Dot, fulfilled it; Dor did they do so under any threat of a mandamus. No such threat was used. Mr Beckham did, indeed, fl .ree or four times tell the Bar that we could go for a mandamus, but we one and all determined to take the opinion of the Bench itself, in spite of Mr Beckham’s repeated assertions that there was a large majority which had decided not to bear or re-he?r the applications ; the Bar did not believe that a Bench of Justices would, upon consideration, b"> guilty of such g.oss tyranny and injustice as to condemn a man unheard. And it turned out that we weie right. Besides a mandamus would have been granted to compel the Justices, not, indeed, as you put it in italics, “to grant a licence,” but (o hear the application for it, which was all we wanted,and to which we had a pe'fect right. As to your statement alluded loin relation to the conduct of the legal profession on that occasion, all I can say is this : if you will accuse me of purposely misleading the Dench on that occasion, or on any Oilier occasion, to gain my client’s case, I will take up the challenge;, and we will veiy soon setDe that question.

The last point to which you draw attention is a quotation from page 121 of Mr Justice Johnston’s “Justice of the Peace.” I Liust that ihe .omission of three words f.or.itbat quotation is a mistake, as the three words left out vnmistakeably show that the Justices had full power to hear or re-hear these applications. Your quotation is: “And they may alter their judgment at the same sitting, but not afterwaids.” The i. ue quoiation is: “And they may alter their judgment at the same sitting or petty sessions, but not afterwards.”

And even the sitting, above alluded to, may be an adjou’iisd sitting of the same Comt, a s though that Court may have one or two diffeient Justices in it. Thus, sir, you will see that on every point I differ with yon, and I challenge you. or your friend of competent legal ability, or any other person in the community, to attempt in any legal way, not by bold assertion, but by proceedings in the Supreme Court, to show that the Jußt,ices acted without jurisdiction, that they were misled, or that anything other than the commonest justice was done to five or six citizens, who otherwise would have been victims to prejudice or favouritism.

[We insert the foregoing letter from Mr Rees, with the remark that time for reflection has not apparently improved either his temper or his Jaw. The omission of the three words, “ or Petty Sessions,” would have been corrected by ourselves to-day; but it is not in the least material to the issue. We decline to discuss the legal question with Mr Rees in our columns, nor are we disposed to join issue with him in a Court of law. That is not our business ; but, as guardians in some sense of public morals, we cannot permit an outrage upon these to pass unchallenged, whether by the Bar or the Bench, or by both combined. —Ed. N.Z.H.]