THE LIQUOR LAW.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1091, 1 April 1911, Page 7

THE LIQUOR LAW.

A FOOTBALL ENTERTAINMENT APPEAL DISMISSED, INTERESTING POINT OF LAW. (By TclcKraph.-Spocial Correspondent.! Mastorton, March 31. A decision of considerable importance, as affecting athletic bodies and associations was given by Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice) in Master'ton this afternoon. This was an appeal against a conviction entered by Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., at Pongaroa. Tlio prosecutor was Constable Caitanaeh, and .the defendant Charles Erickson, bootmaker, of Pongaroa. Erickson was charged'originally that on September, 1910, lie, not being a person exempted by the Licensing Act, 1008, from acquiring a license to sell liquor.'and not being licensed to do so, did unlawfully sell liquor to one Percy Richard Kent. At tlio'hearing before tho magistrate defendant was convicted and lined 20s. and costs 7s.' Defendant appealed, and tho appeal' was heard this morning. His Honour de-' livered the following judgment:— This is an' appeal on a point of law from conviction under section 195 of tho Licensing Act, 1908. The facts,.as stated, show that appellant, along with other members of a football club, bought alcoholic liquor, amounting to £8 worth, for consumption at a concert. Admission to the concert or entertainment was to footballers other than guests Bs.'and 7s. 6d., to non-members of the club ss. The charge made against appellant was that ho sold liquor to -one Percy Richard Kent. •• It was.found by the magistrate that Percy Richard Kent did' not pay 55., which other non-members were paying, but in lieu of such payment lent his piano. The questions raised, therefore, were: (1) • "Was there a sale; (2) was there a salo .by Erickson; (3) did the transaction come under section 2GB, as a permissible 'transaction. lam of opinion that .thero was a salo under old English Ale House Act. This section preventing sales had words "bartering, exchanging, or for. valuable Consideration, /otherwise, disposing of liquors," etc. In tho English Licensing Act of 1872, however the words "bartering or exchanging" wcro not inserted. The words, however, in Section 3 of' tho English Licensing Act of 1872 arc similar to the terms of our own Act, and Section G2 of tho English Act is similar to our Section 206, and under these two English sections it has been held that they include tlio words, "bartering or exchanging." In my opinion' thero was sale, for good consideration was given by Kent for admission to the concert, and tho magistrate has found that any persons who wcro non-members, and who did not pay ss. or give an equivalent for ss. were not admitted, but wcro excluded from the entertainment. I am therefore of the opinion that it was a sale within tho meaning of the Licensing Act. See also tho decision of tho .Supreme Court in the case of. Mackenzie v. Whittinghnm (23;N.Z.L.R., 857.it 863), when his' Honour)' Mr. Justice Donniston,- held that the:word "sale" did not require to bo sale within tho meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895. In my opinion, this was a salo in the strict senso of the term. It was an equivalent given for something else. AVas there sale by Erickson ? Erickson was one of the proprietors of the liquor (see Groft" v. Evans, 8 Q. 8.1). 378). Tho liquor bc-louged-MO' tho club, and ho was a mom-iber-Tofrlblib- tlub, though'' unregistered, ho joined -'with pother's" in' -tlidcßaluf<sfiiquor:fo'various'people 'and to Kent.amongst the number.' It is truo'that'ho did not actually hand tho liquor to Kent, but tlio officers of tlio association 'djd hand the liquor to Kent,' and tho liquor was .thero. for his use as well as for. tho use of' others. In. my. opinion this was a sale by Erickson, he being one of tho proprietors. Did the transaction come under Section .208 of tho Act as a permissible transaction? That, section states that meetings of. an association, society, club, bona fido formed for outdoor games and exercises, may supply members and their guests at tho expenso of the association, society, or club 'with refreshments, in-, eluding liquor. This was not, however, supplying a guest. It was tho supplying of a person who bought'his right of admission. This being so, the protection afforded ■ by Section 268 '• as' ah amendment of Section 267 docs'iiot appl.Vj and consequently the law has been violated: The magistrate has considered tho violation of the law not to be one of tho ordinary* violations of the Licensing Act by an illicit sale, and has modified tho penalty accordingly. The question is whether in .point of law the magistrate's decision was wrong. I am of opinion that his decision was correct in poiut of law, and that consequently tho appeal must bo dismissed, with £5 ss. costs.