THE NEW LIQUOR LAW.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1001, 16 December 1910, Page 8

THE NEW LIQUOR LAW.

SOME DRASTIC PROVISIONS. (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.) Auckland, December 15. An interesting. criticism of the neff . Licensing Act and the restrictions 'it imposes upon the introduction of liquors' into No-License districts . was made 'by Mr. J. S. Palmer, president of New Zealand Licensed Victuallers' Association, in conversation with a reporter. ■ Mr. ■ Palmer expressed the opinion that, taken all round,- the new Act was an improvement on the previous law, more particu< larly with respect to the licensing polls and their possible results. So drastio were some of the provisions'of tho new Act that it appeared to Mr. Palmer very doubtful whether, a resident in a NoLicense area could entertain his guesia with alcoholic refreshment, and at th's same time comply in all respects with the requirements of the law. If ; the letter of-the law was enforced,' it became • a question, whether any man's home would be safe from invasion by • the police. Clause 6 of Section 37 read: 'Tor the . purpose of this section premises shall he deemed, to be a place of resort for the consumption' of intoxicating liquors notwithstanding the fact that they are opea only for the use of particular persons l or particular classes of persons, and are not open to all persons desirous of using tile same."' This provision was evidently aimed at the . locker system in clubs, and at the consumption .of liquor on sports grounds. A man seemed to run a risk in giving liquor to his guests for ad evening, Clause 1 of Section 38 prohibiting him from "storing or keeping" upon his premises liquor for any other person. The police might raid his premises while he was entertaining his guests, and might adduce evidence of previous gather- ■ of a similar nature having been, hold on his premises, .urging that the house has become "a place of resort" within the meaning of tho Act. Another ■ispect of the law not generally appro..', ciated, continued Mr. Palmer,, was that it threw a new and grave responsibility, upon owners of property in No-License', districts. Section 38 made them re-' sponsible for the actions of their tenants,'' and rendered them liable to' the same penalties as those that might b6- incurred by such tenants. If a man who was entertaining h"is friends was' held to ,have "stored or, kept liquor for other persons" on his premises, the man who had "leased,, let, liired, or permitted, or, suffered" such premises, to be' so used was liable; to be penalised to an even greater extent. If he owned a'number of. houses, and several of tho ■ tenants were convicted under Section 38, the. owner would be deemed guilty also, and,* having been convicted mora thau once, would be liable to imprisonment for ■ a i term not exceeding three months. He might be accused of taking an extreme view of the law, but it was shared by gentlemen. who bad greater experience, of the law than he had.