.jpg)
The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 77
The Lawliss Case
The Lawliss Case.
On 30th January, 1895, Nonstable Lawliss, stationed at Napier, was dismissed from the Police Force for
page 21
"immoral conduct," and duly gazetted as "dismissed from the force."
In March, 1895, Lawliss arranged to buy the Royal Oak Hotel, at Weber, near Dannevirke, and on the 26th March applied to Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M., at Palmerston North and Chairman of the Licensing Committee, for a certificate of character, under Section 12, sub-section 2, of the "Alcoholic Liquor Sales Control Act, 1895."
"I, the undersigned, Stipendiary Magistrate, do hereby certify that (A.B.) is a person of good fame and reputation, and fit and proper to have granted to him a publican's license.
"(C.D.) Stipendiary Magistrate."
Mr Stanford, in accordance with the usual practice, sent the application to the police at Napier for the Inspector's report. On 19th April, Inspector Emerson, who knew all the facts, returned the application to Mr Stanford, with the following report:
"19th April, 1895.
"Mr Stanford, S.M.
"I cannot express an opinion as to this man's fitness to conduct an hotel. He was dismissed from the force for immoral conduct.
"Jno. Emerson."
On 8th May (more than a month after the date of the application), Mr Stanford determined to refuse to give Lawliss a certificate of fitness, and informed him of his said determination by letter as follows:—
May 8th, 1895.
"Sir.—Re Mr lawliss' application for certificate of character. In reply to your letter of 3rd inst., I am instructed to inform you that Mr Stanford., the Stipendiary Magistrate declines to give the certificate asked for. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
"W. Maltravers
, Clerk, Magistrate's Court. "R. M. Blakiston, Esq., Solicitor, etc., Dannevirke."On receipt, or probably prior to the receipt, of Mr Stanford's decision, Lawliss went to see, or wrote to, or in some other way communicated with, the Premier in Wellington, with the view, apparently, of getting him to bring his influence to bear on the Magistrate and police in his (Lawliss') favour.
On 10th May, 1895, the Commissioner of Police telegraphed, no doubt at the public expense, to Inspector Emerson, as follows:—
10th May, 1895.
"Inspector Emerson, Napier."Ex-constable Lawliss is applying for a license for a bush house in the Napier district, and I understand the police are opposing it. Why? Is it because he was dismissed from the force? If so, this looks like persecution. If necessary, let the Committee know why he was dismissed from the force. It appears to me he should not be hounded down. Immediate action should be taken, as the case is to be decided on the 14th. I hope you will be able to see your way to withdraw the objection.
"A. H. Hume
, "Commissioner."This telegram must have been based upon Mrs. Lawliss' interview with the Premier, because Colonel Hume had not been officially informed of what was happening between the Magistrate and Lawliss.
Inspector Emerson was away from Napier when this telegram arrived, and Constable Norwood, who was apparently in charge there, sent the following telegram, no doubt at the public expense, to the Commissioner in reply:—
10th May, 1895.
"To the Commissioner of Police, Wellington."Re Lawliss. On 10th ult, Mr Stanford, S.M., applied to the police for report as to Lawliss' character and fitness to hold a license. Inspector Emerson wrote that he could not express an opinion, and that Lawliss had been discharged from the force for immoral conduct. In consequence of this report, I understand Mr Stanford refused to issue a certificate under Section 12, sub-section 2. Alcoholic Liquors Sales Control Act. Inspector Emerson is, I believe, at Galatea, and there are no means of communicating with him. Please instruct what you wish me to do. I would suggest your writing to Mr Stanford.
"S. P. Norwood
, "Constable, Napier (for Inspector)."On 11th May, 1895, the Commissioner sent the following telegram to Mr Stanford. S.M.:—
11th May, 1905.
"R. L. Stanford, Esq., S.M., Palmerston North."The Defence Minuter (the Premier) wishes me to invite your attention to the case of ex-Constable E. J. Lawliss, who is applying for a publican's license, but, I understand, is likely to be refused, because he was dismissed from the force. Inspector Emerson is at Galatea, and, therefore I cannot communicate with him, and do not know what he reported; but it seems that Lawliss paid the penalty of his improper conduct by being dismissed, and if the police are going to hound him down, and prevent his obtaining a livelihood, it looks like persecution, and I trust you mill take these matters into your favourable consideration before deciding on the 4th.
"A. Hume, Commissioner."
On receipt of this telegram, Mr Stanford sent the following telegram to the Commissioner:—
11th May, 1895.
"To the Commissioner of Police, Wellington."Police report Lawliss was dismissed from force for immorality Hardly see how I can do otherwise with sucha report before me. Know nothing of the circumstances.
"R. L. Stanford, S.M."
[Note.—The certificate had been refused on 8th May.]
On the same day (11th May), Constable Norwood wrote to Mr Stanford as follows:—
"R. L. Stanford, S.M.
, Palmerston North, "Sir,—Referring to memo, of 19th April, 1895, from Inspector Emerson, in reply to yours regarding the transfer of license of Weber Hotel to E. J. Lawliss, I beg to inform you that the police do not desire to raise any objection to the transfer of this license to Lawliss.— I am, etc.,
"S. P. Norwood
, District Clerk (for Inspector.)"It does not appear under what authority this letter was sent. Constable Norwood had wired to the Commissioner of Police on 10th May for instructions, but it does not appear from the correspondence that he received any "instructions" before writing to Mr Stanford.
On the same day he (Constable Norwood) telegraphed to the Commissioner as follows:—
11th May, 1895.
"To Commissioner of Police."Have written to Mr Stanford that police do not desire to raise any objection to the transfer of the license to Lawliss.
"S. P. Norwood
, Constable, Napier. (For Inspector.)On the same day (11th May) Constable Norwood wrote to the Commissioner enclosing a copy of his (Norwood's) letter to Mr Stanford. The following is a copy of the letter:
11th May, 1895.
"To the Commissioner of Police."Referring to your telegram of yesterday and my reply thereto, the above is copy of a letter sent to Mr Stanford on this date, which should reach him this afternoon.
Constable Drake, of Dannevirke, will also be instructed not to raise any objection at the annual meeting of the Licensing Committee at Dannevirke.
"S. P. Norwood, District Clerk (for Inspector).
On 13th May, Inspector Emerson returned to Napier, and on being shown the telegram which had been sent to him by the Commissioner on 10th May, he sent the following "urgent" telegram to Mr Stanford:—
13th May, 1895.
"To Mr Stanford, S.M.Urgent—He Lawliss license for public-house. I beg to withdraw all objections, having made further inquiries. I believe he will make an excellent publican
"John Emerson."
On the same day (13th May), Mr Standford, without making any indpendent inquiry, signed a certificate in favour of Lawliss in the usual form, and sent the following telegram to the Commissioner:—
"Police have notified me that all objections to Lawliss are withdrawn. Certificate will now be granted.
"R. L. Stanford, S.M."
On 14th May, the Licensing Committee sat at Dannevirke, when the transfer of the license from Ryan to Lawliss was approved, on the production of the certificate of character from Mr Stanford, S.M. The police, " acting under instructions," made no objections to the transfer, nor did the chairman (Mr Stanford) or the police apparently even inform the members of the Committee of the facts.
If the spirit and letter of the licensing law was not outraged in this case, by order of the Right Hon. the Premier, who was Defence Minister, I should like to know what other view can be taken.
The police and magistrate both bowed to the requirements of the new spirit administering the Defence Department, and with a knowledge of such defiant acts of maladministration as this filtering through the police force, is it any wonder that its deterioration became so rapid and its disorganisation so complete as to make necessary the Royal Commission which sat in 1898.