DURING EPIDEMIC TIME

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 74, 21 December 1918, Page 2

DURING EPIDEMIC TIME

! 9 ALLEGED DRINKING ON LICENSED ■ PROSECUTION FAILS The special order issued by the Public Health Officer during epidemic time, ordering tho closing of hotels, was tho basis of charges of selling liquor, when hotels were required to be closed, preferred flgamst A. J. Monro, licensee of (lie New Zealander Hotel, unci Helen Monro, before Air. F. V. Frasser, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Inspector Mar-sack conducted the prosecution, and, Mr. P. levi defended. ! For the prosecution, Inspector Marsack said that the informations were laid under the Public Health .Act, 1908. Section' 18 of the Act gave certain special powers to district health officers, and a further .clause permitted such officers to exercise any further powers: which tho Governor might confer on. them; Bluing tho recent influenza epidemic,..! special Gazette, was published prohibiting the sale of liquor in "Wellington, and notices were published in to .newspapers by the Health .Department (under authority of special powers) ordering the closing .of all hotels and prohibiting the sale of liquor. Tho. police warned the various licensees that the sale of liquor to anyone was absolutely forbidden.- - Sergcaut Jl'Kolvie.stated that he visit-' ed tho New Zealander Hotel on -Noveiiwber 25, and personally warned the licensee that : he was not to sell liquor to anyone., Hp drew ■ defendant's , notice to the fact that this order bad heen advertised in.tho Press. ■Jlj;. Levi: Did you mention boarders? "Witness: Boarders wero hot mentioned —I!said 'he was not to sell drink to anvone. Sergeant Martin said-that-ho- visited the hotel on November 30, aud" 'found thero.ii number of--men-with-glasses of liquor beforo them, . .They, .were all hoarders of the hotel. Mr. P. Levi submitted that the case should be dismissed. Tho." prosecution had failed to prove that the selling of liquor had been prohibited. The--Gh-etto requires the approval of the Minister of Public Health before any special ■powers could become operative, fiiit there was no evidence of the Minister's ai)-. proval of the notices" published by the" District Health Officer. Tho consent of tho Minister was absolutely necessary'. Further, ho submitted that tho special order was not meant to apply to boarders—in any case boarders were not eppeci-' fied in tho order. These men were drinking in their own homes—thoro was nothing to prohibit- them. - Tho only, "evidence of prohibition was an advertisement in the newspapers!', He-next referred to the Licensing Act,, whicli authorised tho 1 icenseq.'s{. jiji I. hotel''to 'Serve: liquor at any time.to any person.vno was a lodger or who'was staying at the hotel. He submitted that, the special' order issued by the Health-Department could not affect' the powers conferred on the licensee regarding boarders un--<ler Section 191 of the Licensing ■ Act. The way in which prohibition'was.cf-' fected by this adiTiliseineni-'B-as—-too-vague—there wivs no time stated—it did not even state "during H:e epidemic." His Worship, in reviewing the evidence, remarked that the defencp was purely technical, and ho would firsiiy emphasise the fact-that tho police did not suggest that the licensee was serving anyone but boarders. The regulations ■purported to prohibit the sale of alcoholic liquors. Ho considered that this covered everyone—uo .matter ...whether casual or lodger.: Section U of the Public Health Act.authorises,.the."health-of-ficer to advertire in-newspapers • any measures considered necessary to cheek the spread of infectious diseasas. ' His Worship said that it was. possible that the Department did not. fully understand the provisions of the special order. The proclamation issued by (he GovernbrGenepl on Xoveihber"2l"-conferred- on district health officers'; with tho approval of the Minis-rer of Public -Health, <hepower to prohibit tlje sale of4if)uor. The advertisement published <?n November 22, 1918. did not state that tho approval of the Minister had been "given, and no other proof had been submitted to the Court to show that such approval was ever given. Tho informations would be I dismissed. ■ ■ ■ . Other similar informations against A. ,T. Monro and J. Monro were adjourned to January 24, 1919, WAEB-ANTS QUESTIONED IN AUCKLAND. " By Telegraph-Press Association Auckland, December 20. Legal argument as to the validity of the_ orders closing • the hotels and prohibiting the sale of liquor during the epidemic occurred at "the Police Court to-day, when certain licensees were prosecuted for having sold liquor durine-.tho timo mentioned. Counsel, for-defendants maintained: (1) -Assuming , that' the" warrants ussued.by the Government were good, it was necessarv to'prove that the . Minister of Public Health had approved the exercising of the powers to close bnrs; (2) that the powers given to health officers were too e.yte/isive; (3) that there had been delegation- of his powers by the Governor-General, and that such a delegation was not' authorised by Parliament; (4) that the. Governor-General's warrants were unreasonable in that their scope .was such as to prohibit tho salo of liquor for any purpose, eveji by cheniiste in cases of lifo.and doathj (s)' that nolices issued to licensees did not show upon their face that'they were approved by the Minister. Judgment was. reserved.