LIQUOR FOR NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2570, 18 September 1915, Page 14

LIQUOR FOR NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS

TELEGRAPHED ORDER NOT SUFFICIENT.. ' By Telegraph.—Press Association. Dunedin, September 17. Mr. S.M., gave reserved judgment this morning in the caso in which he wa-s asked, to decide whether the transcript of a telegram was such an order as is required under tho Licensing Acts when sending liquor into |NoLicense districts, defendant being charged with selling,-supplying, or senct iug liquor to Awaka which was intended to be taken into a No-License district, other than in pursuance of the terms of an order signed and and stating the address and occupation of tlie purchaser thereof. The transcript of tie telegram produced set out the name, occupation, and address of tho sender, and counsel had contended: (1) That the transcript of the telegram was an order within tho meaning of the section;- (2) that the defendant did not supply liquor intended to be taken in by ■ the purchaser or his agent; (3) that an original telegram handed in at the Telegraph Office is a sufficient order. The Magistrate ruled that there must bo a personal signature by tho purchaser, _ and decided, against counsel's contention that the original telegram, handed in is a sufficient order. In regard to counsel's further contention that dofendant did not supply liquor intended to be taken into a district by' the purchaser or his agent, His Worship said: "I can see no reason for putting a restrictive meaning on the expression in Sub-section 5, and am of opinion that it denotes the removal of liquor into a No-License district, by whatever agency. Defendant will be convicted on 'the charge of selling, but as this is the first time the question has been raised, and defendant cannot be said to have acted unreasonably, ho will be merely iprdered to pay Court costs."