MASTERTON NOTES

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 828, 28 May 1910, Page 6

MASTERTON NOTES

A WINE-CROWINC CASE

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.

(From Oar Special CorroaDondnnt.l Masterton, May 27. Complaints havo been made of late of the nuisance caused by bicyclists riding at night without light. Four persons—Harold Kunvnier, Arthur- Cross, Arthur 6. Wise, and Edward Lawrence —wore charged in the Magistrates Court yesterday morning with a breach of tho by-laws in this connection, hi tho first two cases fines of ss. and is. costs were imposed, and in tho case ol Edward Lawrence a fine of 2s. bd. in tho other case it was shown that defendant was going to Ins homo in tho twilight. Ho was fined Is., and is. A charge of infringing the Licensing Act, in having received an order for liquor within a No-License district, was preferred this morning against a young man named E. A. Baker. Tho offence was admitted, but it was stated by counsel, in extenuation, that tho defendant, who is in the employ of a wholesale firm, had' merely sent tho order to his head office in "Wellington to save the purchaser- of the liquor trouble. Had the purchaser of the liquor sent on the order himself, no offence would havo been committed. The defendant had acted quite innocently in the matter. His Worship hold that he could not overlook the offence. He would not, however, impose a very heavy penalty. Defendant would bo fined £5 and 9s. costs.

Disposal of Confiscated Liquour. The question of the disposal of confiscated liquor cropped up in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton this morning. Sergeant Miller said that he had been instructed .by tho Department to ask for an order that liquor so treated be destroyed. The order asked for was granted, though, as four bottles of whisky had been confiscated in the case under, review, two bottles were ordered to be returned to tho defendant. . Tho inspector for tho Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mr. Davidson) proceeded against Daniel Cole in tie Magistrate's Court to-day

for ill-treating a horse. Dr. Trimble, who appeared for tho prosecution, applied for a substantial penalty. His Worship said that the law provided for a penalty of £20, or two months' imprisonment, and he thought that in many cases imprisonment wa,s deserved; without tho option of a fine. In this case a fine of £5 would bo imposed, with counsel's fee, £1 Is., and costs 9s.

Tha Tararua Vineyards Case. An interesting case , was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton this afternoon, when William G. Lamb, owner of tho Tararua vineyards, was charged with a breach of tho Licensing Act, 1908, in that ho did sell a larger quantity of liquor within the No-License district than is allowed by statute. Sergeant Miller prosecuted, and Mr. Blair, of Wellington, appealed for the defence. Mr. Blair stated that tho salo of tho liquor was admitted, but ho contended that under Section 3 of the Act wine made from New Zealand grapes was exempt from tho penal sections. Sergeant Miller said the Police Department, acting on the advice of tho Crown Law Office, had concluded that the sale of wino of any description in a No-Licenso district was an offence under Section 146 of the Act. Mr. Skorrott, acting foT the accused, had i endeavoured to procure a declaratory judgment in respect to Mr. Lamb, but tho Court had decided that tho case was one to bo decided by a magistrate 'on prosecution. Mr. Blair maintained that it was th© intention of the Legislature that Now Zealand-grown wine should not come within the meaning of the Act. If Section 146 was intended to include New Zealand wines, or perfumes, or military canteens, then tho whole Act was full of contradictions. The defendant . was not affected 'by a Continuance or a Reduction vote; then how could he bo affected bv a No-License vote? The whole object of the Act was to deal with the licensed salo of liquor. It could not possiblv be supposed that it was tho intention of the Legislation to prohibit the growth or salo ot New Zealand wines in a NoLicense district. The official records showed that there were 700 acres in vines in New Zealand, and the output was 300,000 gallons per year. Did the Legislature intend that this industry should be wiped out without compensation? If it was an offenco for Mr. Lamb to sell wine within tho district, it was equally an offence for him to sell wine without the district, for ho was not a brewer. ■ Counsel would like to know what the No-Licenso party thought of the effects of No-License. I Was it not a fact that No-License, 'while it prohibited the sale of liquor by the pint, permitted the sale by the gallon? . What harm could come of the people buying two gallons of wholesome New Zealand wine within the district, instead of having to go to outside districts for it? If the matter was ono of the construction placed upon the Act, and if there was any doubt as to the . construction, Mr. Blair urged that the Court should give tho defendant the benefit of that doubt. Section 146 imposed a very severe penalty for an infringement of the Act. The consequences were very grave; but they wore more grave to Mr. Lamb if tho decision of the Court were given against him, for his vineyard would practically bo useless to him. For theso reasons Mr. Blair urged that the_ information must fail. Sergeant Miller stated that thero was nothing to prevent the defendant selling wine outside the district. His Worship said he had given tho case considerable thought. He agreed with what Mr. Blair had said. New Zealand wino was not "expressly" prohibited by the Act, and he thought if Section 146 were to apply it would at once contradict Section 3. For this reason he had come to the conclusion that the information must be dismissed.