"A BARE SUSPICION."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1164, 27 June 1911, Page 6

"A BARE SUSPICION."

WHAT IS THE LAW? A I'KOBLEM: I'Olt THE LICENSING BENCH. The adjourned annual meeting of the Wellington Licensing Committee- was concluded at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning.. Dr. A. ll'Aithur, S.JI., presided, and there were also present on tho bench: Messrs. J. Smith,' J. W. Wilton, G. I'ctherick, G. Tiller, and W. J. Helyor. Inspector Ellison represented the police. .

Tho only case was Ilio application of A. Schultz. of Coiirtenay -J'laee, ■ for a winilesalo license. Mr. E. G. Jellicqe, with'him Mr. C.. H;. Dix, in support of the -application. Jnspcctor Kllison, who opposed'the application, had already called several witnesses, and now C«ll«t: ' "

Sergeant Kutledge, of the Mount Cook Station, who stated thot, in tho course uf.'his duty, he had had to call on Schultz. In connection with the first prosecution of a man named Alfred Britis. he had oxeciited a search warrant, and had found on "Britis's premises 327 full bottles, with Schiiltz's label on. About twenty dozen empty bottles, found on the premises, also bore tho same label. Two days' after the searcha warrant 'w'ns executed. Accompanied by Constable M'Kolfey, he (witness) had called on Schultz, and had asked' if he had supplied any liquor to Britis. Schultz replied that he did not think so, and, when the books wore examined, the name of Britis did not appear. An entry was found, however, on December 21, 1910: "20 dozen cash; December- li), 1910,'20 dozen cash; December 12, 1910, 15 dozen cash! collect 1.1 empty." There was another entry: "i dozen; collect I.T. empty. Witness asked Schnltz whom these were for, and the latter replied that he could not tell, but there were entries of smaller quantities which included the name and address of the purchaser. Britis was convicted on January li, 1911, Mr. Sennit?. being present, and, during cross-examination, admitteilJlr. Jellicoo objected. If tho pohco wished to give this sort of evidence they should put Britis in the box. Schultz had had no chance of contradicting any admissions made by Britis. The chairman ruled that the evidence that Britis had given on oath was admissible; but took a note of Mr. Jellicoe's objection. ~„•■.■ j -i Continuing, witness said Britis admitted that, during the month of December, he had been supplied with 08 dozen of beer by Schultz. Since the seizure made on 'Britis's premises, other places hail been searched under warrant, nnd it was noticeable that thero were no labels on the bottles found. Mr. Jollicoe: What do you complain about in December? -Do-you'suggest to the committee that Schultz sold too much liquor or too little to Britis?—"Too much to a man with a five-roomed house." Mr. Jellicoc: Is it against tho law? Tho law says that he miist not sell less than two gallons, but'does it say he must not sell more?

Witness considered that , it was improper to sell largts quantities if the vendor knew that they were not intended to be consumed in the purchaser's own house. In further cross-examination witness stated that Sub-Inspector Norwood had conducted the prosecution. Mr. Schultz had been summoned as a witness, but not called. Witness did not know why.

Mr. Jellicoc: Did you tell Schultz that you would oppose his license?—"l cautioned him."

Mr. Jellicoc: That's not an answer to my question. What did you say?— Witness could not recollect the exact words, but knew tho gist of what was said. Mr. Jellicoe: Did you approach him or did he approach you?— Witness could not reraeml)er.

Mr. Jellicqe: Do you mean, to suggest that your mind is such a blank that you don't know how you-came together?— Witness replied again that he did ant remember, but he spoke to Schultz, and gayo him to understand that tlitrs would be tTouble about the license if he continued the - indiscriminate.'ealo cf liquor without entering the name nnd address of the purchaser.

Mr. Jellicoe: What reason did you give for opposing his !iccnso?-r"So far as I can recollect, it wis for supplying liquor in such large quantities, and not making a note of where they wero going to."

Witness .was continuing to enlarge on his answer, when Mr. Jellicoa interrupted, and said that he did not want anything further. "You can wait till the inspector finishes you off," counsel added.

Tho Chairman: The, inspector has no intention of "finishing oft" the sergeant. (Laughter.)

This was tie evidence called by Inspec tor« Ellison.

"I shall submit that you have no jurisdiction to refuse my client's application for a renewal of his license," was Mr. Jellieoe's remark in opening his client's cisc. He contended that, during the whole of the proceedings, they had been beating the air. Tho wholesale license authorised the holder to sell and deliver to one place in quantities of not less than two gallons, there to be delivered to one person at one time, and to be consumed elsewhere than on the licensee's premises. The Court could not'question the salo in a licensing area of 20 dozen or even one hundred dozen. The law did not fix any limit to the amount that could be sold—it simply provided for not less than two gallons. If it could bo proved that, on any occasion, the licensee had sold liquor in quantities of less than two gallons, none of those sales would be covered or protected by his license, and he would bo liable to conviction, but, although the police could not come beforo a magistrate and prove any salo of less than two gallons, they. were suggesting to tho Bench that there was a bare suspicion of such sales. Counsel contended that, if his client could not be convicted of an unlicensed sale, ho could not bo deprived of his" license. As a second point, counsel submitted (after quoting definitions of wholesale license), that tho specific objections that could be taken to the renewal of a wholesale license- were confined to personal objections only. Counsel quoted the law on the pointy .it considerable length, but did not call evidence. . ■'

After Inspector Ellison had briefly replied to some of the law points raised, the chairman intimated that the committee would give decision at 11 a.m. to-mor-row.