Unusual Defence Raised In Licensing Case

Chronicle (Levin), 15 June 1948, Page 3

Unusual Defence Raised In Licensing Case

The case was unusual „ but he would consider that liquor had been supplied to the defendant, whether he had won it in a raffle or not. Commenting to this effect on a charge against a Maori under the Licensing Act . in the Magistrate's Court," Levin, Mr. H. J. Thompson, S.M., a'dded that he would reserve his decision meanwhile. The case was one in which Arona McGregor, of Opiki, was jharged with aiding and assisting in the supply of liquor to a native for consumption off licensed premises in the Raukawa district. Appearing for defendant, Mr. N. M. Thomson entered a plea of not guilty. After contending that ohere was no evidence of actual encouragement and the case was, therefore, a non-suit, Mr. Thomson, said that defendant's explanation was that he had bought a ticket in a raffle conducted in the bar of the hotel, and did not know the purpose of the raffle until handed the iiquor. Mr. Thomson submitted that more evidence than that brought by the police would be needed to prove the charge. ,The evidence in effect was that a Maori had simply been seen with liquor in his possession, he continued. The law clearly set out that there must be evidence of encouragement. • Mr. Thomson then referred the magistrate to several legal authorities. Sergeant W. Grainger, also quosing legal references, added that the charge against defendant had been heid for many years to be an offence, and had stood the test of time. , •'

"From a common sense point of view anyone who takes liquor is supplying it to themselves, and is aiding and encouraging himself," commented the magistrate. "The defendant certainly aided himself." In evidence, Constable B. Watson of Shannon, said that he had seen defendant- coming from the direcI tion of the Club Hotel with a shopping basket containing the liquor, and had later observed him transferring it to a sugar bag. When confronted by hm, defendant hah stated that he had "got the liquor from the boss of the hotel." When asked what hotel, he had replied: "The Club." Asked to accompany him to the hotel, "defendant had stated that the licensee had not supplied him wih the liquor, but that a man in the hotel had. Defendant was a Maori resident m a proclaimed area, added the constable. Asked by Mr. Thomson whether he had made enquiries of the licensee, witness said he ha'd and the licensee had said that he had' not supplied liquor to defendant to take off the premises. "The natural inference is that when a Maori takes bottles of beer away he is not doing so to put them up on .posts and fire stones at them," remarked Ihe magistrate. "He has apparently admitted that he obtaine'd the liquor." Explaining that his client had received the beer as the result of winning a raffle conducted on the floor of the bar, Mr. Thomson said that it was for that reason he contended that there was no active encouragement. His client could hardly be guilty of instigating the supply of liquor to himself, and he submitted that he was, thererore, innocent of a breach of the Act. Called by Mr. Thomson, 'defendant described being approached by a man and asked to buy a ticket in a raffle, stating that he was not aware of what the raffle involved. He pro'duced a raffle ticket in support of his statement. Cross-examined by Sergeant Grainger, defendant said that he did not know the name of the man who sold him the ticket. Sergeant Grainger: You told Mr. Thomson a few minutes ago that you knew the man, but couldn't mention his name. Why couldn't you? Defendant replied that he 'did not know the man. Sergeant Grainger: Shannon is inot a city. You must know him. Witness replied that he could not be sure of his name. There were quite a few people who sold raffle tickets, and he might mention a name and find that that person had not been there that day. The magistrate reserved his decision as mentioned above.