A MANIFEST INJUSTICE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3107, 3 February 1909, Page 4

A MANIFEST INJUSTICE.

For some years past the development of the Tararua Vineyard has been a matter of considerable interest to many persons in the district. Its enterprising proprietor (Mr W. G. Lamb) .has worked hard for sever years past to attain success, and now, when it seemed that he was about to reap the hardly earned reward of unremitting exertion and care, he finds that a legal technicality —a most manifest injustice blocks the development of bis business. The position in which Mr Lamb is in calls for redress at the hands 1 of Parliament, assuming that he has been correctly advised as to his legal position. Mr Lamb can, of cour.-n, go to law —there is the possibility ■that he .may have a case, but surely be can obtain justice by means less expensive, and a little less uncertain. The object of Prohibitionists—:and we have the word of their Naders for it-is simply to close the open 1 ar. We cannot imagine that it was ever intended that the scope of the No-License poll should be epial to ruining an industry such as the Tararua Vineyard. However, that indeed is the law so far as it H known to-lay! Mr Lamb has been informed, in response to his inquiry, that "this matter has been considered on previous occasions, and ai opinion given by the Solicitor General to the Colonial Secretary in 190 5 deals with a similar case to the present (see pap2rs J. 05,-1865). It was held thai section 33, "Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Amendment. 1895,'" forbidding the s.iie of any liquor "in a No-Li<:ense" district was conclusive. "Liquor," a-) del.ned by the Act, includes wine, cider, sherry, etc. The Act of 1908, section 146, contains the same provision as section 35 referred to, so that the position would appear to be that no sale of wine can take clace even at a vintage which is within a "No-License district." If the legal position is, as Mr Lamb has been informed, then it virtually means the closing up of his business. It is true, we believe, that he can establish a depot without district, but this would be a costly matter, and then would be of little use, as no order could be accepted within the "NoLicense" area of Masterton. If the issue submitted to the people had been one of No-License —No-Liquor, MiLamb would have had little to complain of, but his grievance lies in respect of the fact that the Government is supposed to encourage vine growing. and the manufacture of wine in New Zealand, yet, though the purest of wine is manufactured at the Tararua Vineyard, the effect of a local option poll, which simply relates to the open bar, is to defeat the intention of the Legislature in other respects. The Tararua Vineyard is not licensed, yet its proprietor is subject to the result of a licensing poll! Surely here is an anomaly in the law that requires attending?