Secret Societies And Licensed Premises.

intelligible he should tell their lordships that sections 19 to 22 dealt with penalties for tho adulteration of intoxicating liquour . These , however , were subsequently repealed . Mr . Justice Cave . —For the purpose of preventing or detecting what violation of the Licensing Acts did the police officers enter the premises ? Mr . Candy said the evidence was that having heard music and singing the Qfficers entered the house and went upstairs to see whether the landlord

had a music and dancing licence . The police-sergeant was asked at the petty sessions if he did not also think that there might have been something else in his mind such as permitting too much intoxicating liquor to bo consumed , and it then occurred to him that he might have been there with certain other things in his mind . The recorder had stated that the constables were on the premises for the purpose of preventing or detecting a violation of the provisions of the Act of 1874 .

Mr . Justic Cave . —Can a police-constable demand to enter a bedroom in an hotel ? Mr . Candy . —Yes , according to my learned friend who supports the conviction . Mr . Justice Cave . —It will take a great deal to convince me of that . We had better hear what is the violation suggested here .

Mr . Vachell , in support of the conviction , said it was suggested that the police went to the premises in order to see whether there was excessive drinking going on or whether any other offence against the Licensing Act was being committed . Mr . Justice Cave . —But he must have some ground for going there . He cannot of his own sweet will and pleasure enter any room on licensed premises . If he could he might enter a bedroom occupied by a man and his wife .

Mr . Vachell said in this case the officers heard music and singing going on in a house which had not a music and dancing license , and they accordingly entered the premises . Mr . Justice Cave . —That may be so . I want to know what they claim the right to do . Mr . Vachel . —They claim the right to enter premises if they think that excessive drinking or any other violation of the Licensing Act is being permitted .

Mr . Justice Cave . —What is the violation they had reason to think existed ? Mr . Vachell . —Excessive drinking . Mr . Justice Cave . —Is that all ? It has been found that music and singing would not lead to the opinion that excessive drinking was going on . Mr . Candy , continuing , said section 35 of the Act of 1872 was repealed , and section 16 of the Act of 1874 did not contain the words enabling

constables to enter licensed premises of their own sweet will whenever they liked and to examine every room and part thereof . Those words were omitted because it was thought that it would be monstrous to leave it to the discretion of a constable to say whether he should , without any reason whatever , enter licensed premises . With such discretion a constable might enter licensed premises at any hour during the day or night simply because he

wished to annoy a particular licensed victualler . In this case the house was open , and therefore there was no necessity to demand admission to the premises . They entered the house and walked upstairs to the room whence the sound came . They knocked at the door of the room , and a person pulled back a slide . As the officials were not members they were refused admission to the room .

Mr . Justice Cave . —Which is the section which enables the police to enter in case of excessive drinking ? Mr . Candy said section 16 of the Act of 1874 was the only section which gave the police power to enter . His point was that there was nothing in the Act of 1874 in section 16 which replaced the very rigorous section 35 of the

Act of 1872 , which justified the contention of the other side , that when a constable was in a licensed house he might demand admission to a private room which had been rented by a particular society at a yearly rental , the occupation being from eight o ' clock on Thursday evening until closing time , and the room not being under the control of the publican .

Mr . Justice Cave . —Can you state how long the room was occupied by the society ? Mr . Candy replied that ever since 1892 the society had had the exclusive right to the occupation of this room on the Thursday nights , from eight o ' clock . The constable did not demand and was not refused admission to the house , but having entered he then demanded admission to a room which was not under the control of the license-holder . The latter pointed out that

he had no power whatever to admit the constable , the room being in possession of a society who were holding a Lodge meeting at that very moment . The constable went away , and then came this significant fact . The section which dealt with persons who allowed music to take place on their licensed premises was a section of the Public Health Amendment Act . Tho prosecution took out a summons under that Act , but they dropped it . They then took out tho present summons and went on with it . This was

a summons under the 16 th section , and for the purpose of establishing an offence under that section it lay upon the respondent to justify the act of the constable in demanding admission to this private room . When he was before the learned recorder at Bristol he ( counsel ) ventured to say that if he had taken a room in that city for the purpose of attending the quarter sessions , if there had been a piano in tho room and he had invited someone to cheer him by playing and singing to him and if a constable bad sought admission

to the room because he had heard the strains of music , then , having so entered the room , he on his part , provided he had been big enough and strong enough , might have thrown the constable out of the window . ( Laughter . ) The recorder , in reply to that eventuality , remarked that it was one which might lead to his ( counsel's ) coming before him in another capacity at the quarter sessions . ( Laughter . ) On the face of the sections of the Act of Parliament , he submitted that the recorder had taken too rigorous a view , and that the appellant was entitled to succeed on the appeal .

Mr . Vachell contended that the constable in this case acted in a manner that was justifiable . In the case of " The Queen v Dobbin " it had been held that if a constable said he desired to enter licensed premises to see if there was anything wrong in the house , that was a sufficient reason for demandin g entry . In this particular room exciseable liquors were being sold to the

members of tho society , and the constable was entitled to see whether excessive drinking was going on . As to the point that , having obtained admission to licensed premises , he was not entitled to go into any particular room , it had been decided , in the case of the " Queen v Tott , " under the Beerhouse Act of 1834 , that a publican was obliged to admit a constable to an outhouse in the yard , as it was part of the licensed premises .

Mr . Justice Cave . —But there the outhouse was in the immediate occupation of the publican , but here the room was not . Has a policeman the right to go into any room in the licensed house , no matter by whom occupied or under what circumstances ?

Secret Societies And Licensed Premises.

Mr . Vachell . —I submit that he has . Mr . Justice Cave . —Suppose a man is staying there with his wife and that they are sleeping , has the constable the right to enter that room ? Mr . Vachell . —I think so , it ho had reasonable grounds . Mr . Justice Cave;—But suppose tho man had licked the door and would not unlock it so that the constable could not enter , would the hotel-keeper be convicted .

Mr . Vachell . —In this particular case there was no effort made by the hotel-keeper to enable the constable to enter . Mr . Justice Cave instanced the case of a gentleman occuping a private sitting-room in an hotel with his wife and daughter , and asked , supposing the daughter played and sang to her parents , would a constable be justified in demanding admission to that room .

Mr . Vachell submitted that he would if he had any reasonable ground for supposing that an offence was being committed there . At the conclusion of the arguments . Mr . Justice Cave delivered judgment . He said the case raised some questions which , in his opinion , it was not necessary at the present time to decide , though he should be inclined to hesitate a very long time before he decided in the mode in which the learned recorder appeared to have decided

them . That the power of entry of licensed premises for the enforcement of the Licensing Acts included the right of admission to any room which was part of the premises covered by the license at any time and under all circumstances was a great deal more than he was prepared to hold . There was a power given by the 16 th section of the statute to demand to be admitted to licensed premises for certain purposes , and there must be evidence which would lead to the conclusion that the state of things alleged to exist

did in all probability exist or was about to exist . If , for instance , it had been shown that upon previous occasions during the four years tenure of this room any members of the society had been known to leave the house in a state of intoxication there would have baen some ground for supposing that there was an undue consumption of liquor upon the premises . But that would then have raised the still further question of whether , when that took place in a private room , and not a public one , they could convict the license

holder because the guests to whom he had sub-let part of the premises refused to admit the police constable . He certainly should like to hear some further argument before he was at all satisfied in these circumstances that the license holder would be responsible . It appeared to him , without entering into the somewhat wider question , that here there was no evidence of any kind except the statement of the police constable , that he had any reason to believe that there was any violation of the law which he was

entitled to enforce , going on , or about to go on , upon the premises . All that the constable heard was music and singing , a state of things which took place over and over again in licensed premises where rooms = were let to private parties . To say that in a room of an hotel which was occupied by a gentleman , his wife , and daughter , because the latter was asked to sing in the evening with a view of beguiling the monotony of staying at an inn , that therefore any constable who might be about was entitled to demand

admission to that room to see what they were doing , seemed to him a very monstrous thing indeed . So , again , it would be rather a strong thing to say that a license holder should be convicted for refusing to admit persons into a private room when he no longer had control over it , and , it might be , was prevented from entering it himself . It was not , however , necessary for the present purpose to go the length of considering these questions—although they undoubtedly deserved very careful consideration—because the Recorder

appeared to have come to the conclusion that if the constable said he wanted to enter the premises for the purpose of preventing a violation of or enforcing the law that was enough . He did not agree with that view , for there must , in his opinion , be something in the nature of a reasonable ground for such interference . There was nothing to prevent a constable going over the public part of licensed premises , but he should not hold that he was at liberty to go all over the house , including rooms not actually in the

occupation of the landlord , but of guests , solely because he chose to say he was there for the purpose of detecting and preventing some offence against the law . Surely such a delicate mission as that was not to be entrusted toV constable without some control over him . He did not desire that this decision should be taken as at all giving colour to the proposition that parties might indulge in excessive drinking in public houses , and if it had been shown that there had been excessive drinking in connection with this

society on any previous occasion , so that the constable might have bad reasonable ground for his action , then the Court would have been very loth to interfere with the decision of the magistrates , but that was not the case here , and accordingly they considered that the conviction ought to be reversed . Mr . Justice Lawrance concurred . The conviction was accordingly quashed , with costs . — " Morning Advertiser . "

Masons And The Indian Famine.

MASONS AND THE INDIAN FAMINE .

THE Western District Masonic Association is presided over by Bro . Major George S . Strode , J . P ., the head-quarters being the Freemasons' Hall , Princess Square , Plymouth . Although only a young Institution , the association has already

done useful work . One of its most recent elforts was to get subscriptions from the various Lodges in the three towns towards the Indian Famine Fund . The sum of £ 98 9 s has been subscribed , says the " Western Mercury . "

Fraud by means of Masonic signs is a new delinquency which ( says the Paris Correspondent of the " Daily Chronicle" ) has recently come under the notice of French criminal procedure . A man named Munier , who had been in the habit of drawing

sums from benevolent Freemasons , has been sentenced to four months imprisonment . M . Lefresne , the presiding judge , declared that offence was as punishable as that of pretending to be a priest , and so hearing a confession , or of belonging to the police for some nefarious purpose .