SALE OF WINE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 845, 17 June 1910, Page 9

SALE OF WINE.

NEW ZEALAND PRODUCT IN NOLICENSE AREAS. A MASTERTON APPEAL. An interpretation of the Licensing Act, as to whether or not it is legal to sell Now Zenlmi(l-m:ide wine in No-License districts, was sought yesterday in the Supreme Court, a Masterton appeal case coming before the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout). In the Masterton Magistrate's Court, William George Lamb, a grower of grapes, unci nine manufacturer, had been proceeded against for selling quantities of his wine in the No-License district of Masterton. The prosecution was instituted at Ilia own request, in order that a ruling of the Court might be obtained. The .Magistrate, Mr. C. C. Graham, dismissed the information, and the Crown now appealed from this decision. 111'.- J. W. Salmond, Solicitor-General, with hiin Mr. li. 11. Ostler, appeared on behali lo Nathaniel Miller, sergeant of police, supporting the appeal; and Mr. o.l'. Skerrett, K.C., with Mm Mr. P. P. Kelly, appeared for Lamb, the respondent. In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Snlmond said that the information ugilnst Lamb had been issued under Section 146 of the Licensing Act, 190 S. Lamb contended that such sales of New /jealund win© as he desired still to conduct were exempted by Section 8 of _ the Act,' subsection (c) of which provided that, except as expressly provided in the Act, nothing in the Act should apply to •in}' person selling wine, cider, or sherry, in quantities of not le«6 than two gallons rtt any one time, the produce of grapes, apples, pears, or other fruits grown in New Zealand, and not to be consumed upon the premises upon which they were manufactured. ' The other exemptions allowed by Section 3 were: (1) Any person selling spirituous or distilled perfumo bona fide as perfumery; (2) any apothecary, chemist, or druggist administering or selling any spirituous, distilled, or fermented liquors for medicinal purposes; (3)' any person holding an auctioneer s license, and scllihg liquor at public auction in quantities of not less than five gallons at any one time; (4) any person selling liquor in any refreshment room at the Ilousos of Parliament, by the permission and under the control of 1 f. r , ," mcnt; (5) any Military canteen established by law; and (6) islands subject to the Cook Islands Government Act, 1908. If the contention l put forward on Lamb's behalf were upheld by the Court, said Mr. 'Snlmond, the exemption thus allowed to New Zealand wine would barn a far-reachinj effect. It was not merely a question whether a person could sell wino manufactured by himself, but it was a central question whether a man could sell any New Zealand wine in a no-, license district. Mr. Skerrett: Of anyone s manufacture? Mr. Salmond: Yes, of anyone's manufacture. Mr. Skerrett: Oh, I don't submit, that. In further argument, the SolicitorGeneral urged that, if it were permissible that a man should sell New Zealand wine in * no-licenso district, it would bo just as proper for nil auctioneer in the samo district to sell a3 much beer as he liked, so long as it was in quantities of not less than two gallons. The whole purpose of no-license would be defeated, said Mr. Salmond, if the law were so easily eTaded. There wero several other provisions of the Licensing Act, whien, he submitted, could also be evaded, if the magistrate's decision in this case were upheld. In, the Cook Islands, for instance, there were restrictions upon the liquor trade, which was practically ill the hands of the Government. If it were decided that New Zealand wine might be sold in no-licenso districts, liquor might then be taken legally to tho islands, and sold by auction ill the same way as would bo possible within tho Dominion. It would also bo legal to take Now Zealand Wine, wliich might contain 40 per cent, of proof- spirit, into the -King Country and distribute it among the Maoris. He urged also that if the prohibition applied to all fluids containing mure than 3 per cent, of proof spirit, it would be illegal to sell, methylated spirits, varnish, and certain perfumery in a nolicense district. Outlining the case for the respondent Lamb, Mr. Skerrett remarked that it might have been the jiolicy of tho law to preserve the useful industry of wino manufacture from the exigencies of the popular vote. Counsel submitted that this was a feasible and sensible view t'o take, although it might be contAided that the intention of Parliament had bteri to prevent tho sale of any liquor within nolicenso districts. This class of trade had liover been the subject of a poll. His Honour: Only licenses are really subject to the poll. Mr. Skerrett: Exactly, but it is an important observation thnt this was never subject to provisions relating to a poll. It is not tho object fo prohibition to exclude liquor from tho district. His Honour: It is the object of prohibition to', stop sales in the district. Mr. Skerrett: Th< object is to pi-event sales within tho district, but not to prohibit the importation of liquor in any quantities within tho district. His Honour: Under certain restrictions. Mr. Skerrett: Under no restrictions. His Honour: No; it is necessary to mark the liquor. Mr. Skerrett: That may be. His Honour: That is. a 'restriction. Mr. Skerrett: In practice it is no .restriction. (Laughter.) The object of these provisions for prohibition appear to bo to prevent tho sale of liquor inpint?, 'and to allow its sale in gallons. Continuing his arguments, Mr. Skerrett said that, if tho contention of tho Solicitor-General was correct, the manufacture, as well as the sale, of wine, in u No-License area, was prohibited. It was not possible then to keep, in-a NoLicenso district, liquor that was to be sold anywhere. Mr. Skerrett pointed out that, if tho argument of the SolicitorGeneral was correct, a wino manufacturer was worse off than a brewer (licensed under the Brewers' Act), because ho must shift his business, whereas a brewer might still carry on his business of manufacturing in a No-License district. Lamb, said Mr. Skerrett, had spent his life l and his means upon his business, and tho Court ought tr weigh the law well before' depriving him of his business. Mr. Ostler, in reply, said that tho law did not prevent a wino manufacturer trom having his business in a No-License district, but ho must not sell wine within the No-License area. Ho might, how--ever, do as the brewers now did—establish a depot for the sale of his wine outsido tho boundary of the No-License district. His Honour reserved his decision. SHAMROCK HOTEL LEASE. ■ Circumstances attached to the leasing of the Shamrock Hotel, Molesworth Street, were inquired into by the Su-> preme Court yesterday. in tho case of Staples nnd Company, Limited, brewers, of Wellington, and Anton Martin Schweigaard Nannestad, hotelkeeper, of Wellington, versus Michael Joseph Hodgins, hotelkeeper, of Lower Hutt, and U'homa.'j llodgins, farmer, of Tanc, near I'ahiatua, (lie trustees under the will of Thomas Hodgins, kotelkeeper, deceased. The case was heard before tho Chief .luslice (Sir Robert. Stout). Mr. C. P. SV«rrett, K.C., appeared for Staples and Company, Mr. A. L. Herduisu for Nonnested, and Mr. W. 11. 1). Bell for the defendants. The case was concerned with a lease, duloil March I, 18D0, giveu by Thoin&a Hodgins (now deceased) to Staples and Company, and with au under-least:, dated .inly 10, 1907, given by Staples arid Company to Nannestod, both lease« referring lo tin Shamrock Hotel. It was pointed imt that the trustees, who appeared as defendants to tha action, hid tefused to I consent to an assignment of tho undor-1 least- by Nanneslad to a fourth parly. The Court was asked lo consider three questions: (1) Whether it was necessury I'o'r Nnmicsiad to obtain the consent of the trustees to an assignment of tho underlease; (2) Whether it was necessary for Staples and Company to obtain the consent of the trustees fo an assignment of tho underlease by Nanne6tad, before they themselves could legally consent to the assignment; and (3) Whether, in lOusoiiliiiß lu an assignment by Nan J

nestad, without the consent or concurrence of tho trustees, Staples and Company were committing a breach of a covenant not to assign, underlet, or part with possession of the hind and premises leased to them. Having heard the argument of counsel, his Honour reserved judgment.