MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 152, 22 March 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

SELLING LIQUOR DURING EPIDEMIC TIME TWO PUBLICANS FINED The position of • iceiisees of hotels under tlio special orders closing the hotel bars and generally prohibiting the sale of alcohol during the epidemic was decided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. I''. V. J'razer, S.M. In December last informations charging certain licensees with breaches of_ tho special legislation ordering tiie ciosing of the hotels during the epidemic were dismissed by Mr. Irazer, 5.M.,-for the reason that the prosecution had failed to show that the consent of the Minister of Public Health had been first obtained before the special orders were issued, as required 'by the Public Health Act. Cases pending against Adam John Monro ■and John Monro, of the New Zealander Hotel, were then adjourned on tho application of the prosecution, and yesterday morning tliev were proceeded with. Mr. P. S. K. Maoassey, of the Crown Law Office, prosecuted, and Mr. P. Levi appeared for the defendant. Dr. R. H. Mnkgill, District Health Officer, stated that he was originally appointed to that position in 1901. A Gazette notice was issued on November 6, declaring influenza to be an infectious and dangerous disease. He also produced copies of Gazette notices, which extended his .powers under the Public Health Act, and also tUu authorities empowering witness to dose hotel bars and to ultimately prohibit the sale of alcoholic. liquor. Mr. Macassey: Did ytw secure the approval of the Minister of Public Health as required by the Act? Witness: I did. * Continuing, witness produced a certificate signed by the Minister of Publio Health approving of the action he Lad taken. Mr. Lovi: In what way was the Minister's approval given? Witness: Verbally. I went to his office, where we had a conference, and the Minister there gave Lis-approval. In answer to further questions, witness admitted that the object of the special orders was to prevent the congregating of crowds in hotels. He understood that alcohol could be i.i-ocuxed for medicinal purposes from the Mayor and from certain hospitals on the production of a doctor's certificate. In his opinion alcohol was a. useful specific in the treatment of influenza.

Mr. Levi pointed out that tho advertisement prohibited the sale of liquor absolutely, whereas the sale of alcohol under control was admitted as necessary and permitted.

" Evidence was given by Sergeant M'Kelvio as to i warning the defendant that the sale of liquor was prohibited during the epidemic. Tho defendant had stated that ha had not received any official intimation regarding the matter.

To Mr. Levi: Boarders were not mentioned during tho discussion. -■

Sergeant Lopdell gave evidence as to visiting- the- hotel on December 3 and finding a number of men partaking of liquor. Of the seven men he found on the premises only three were, boarders. To Mr. . Levi: AVitness was satisfied that one of the men named Hunt was a boarder, and that he -had said that he had paid for tho drinks.

"This case is defended ns a protest against 1 the methods followed % the Department in the matters," said Mr. Levi at the conclusion of tlie case for the prosecution. To his inind an order prohibiting the sale of alcohol by advertisement in the newspapere was no.t a proper manner in which new penal legislation should be mado. Counsel said that tho notice was too vague, and 110 time was stated. He repeated tho views he submitted in a previous case in December last, whoro, under sections of tho Licensing Act, a licensee was entitled to serve liquor to boarders. The advertise, ment did not show i.liat the consent of the Minister of Publio Health had been obtained beforo tho ordor was issued. Dr. Makgill had stated that the Minister had given his approval, but apparently there. was no record of (.his other than a signed statement made by tho Mini?, te.r. He did not .know wlip'tlfer the ap•proval had been givei. before or after Hie notico closing the hotels was published.

In reply, Mr, Macassey quoted sections of the Public Health Act which em powered the Department to quarantine, close, and oven destroy a building, and he submitted tlmt the steps taken by the Department's, officers were such as were essential to combat the terrible.disease which was ravaging the country and i !? g hundreds of people. He contended that any special legislation introduc- , cpnvbat such an epidemic would automatically override any existing legislation which might prevent the offechvoness of siicli special legislation. H' s Worship said that the reason why the previous case had been dismissed J ns ,that there was no evidence to.show the Minister's approval had been obtained. This case was. different, as there was evidence to show that the Minister's approval had been obtained as required by the Gazette notice. Ordinarily one would expect that such ap f proval would be recorded in writing at tho tiijie, but the voiintry was then in the grips of a terrible scourge, and the ofneers of the Department were at their wits end; to combat the scourge, and no doubt many little formalities were overlooked in their desire to oust tho evil. Ho was satisfied that the necessary approval had been. retained. His Worship. did not think' that the order was unreasonable—it was framed to prevent people crowding in hotel bars, and tlio subsequent norice was published to counteract' tho practice of people congregating in the rooms of hotels and'drink- — ? iy." I '®' '^ r ' Makeill had said that (he intelligent use of liquor under medical sunervision was advisable during the epidemic, but the unintelligent use of liquor tended, In aggravate the disease. Ihe ■ special ■ legislation created for an emergency must override any general Act such as the Licensing Act. The defendants would be convicted'and fined <£2 each, with cost?. OTHER POLICE CASES. ' Edward Gregory Barrett appeared on remand for sentence on a charge of having converted certain moneys amounting to collected on behalf of his employer, N. H. Tfeid, dairyman, to his own use. Barrett admitted the offence, and stated that some of the money ho collected he had used in horse racing, and tho remainder he had used to balance up certain accounts which ho had failed to pay over to his employer on behalf of customers. His Worship decided to enter a conviction, and order defendant. to enmp up for sentence when called upon within two years, 011 condition that he reported lo Ihe Probation Officer, abstained from drink, and kept away from hotels, billiard saloons, onrl race meetings during that period. Defendant, was also ordered lo refund Ihe £21) in instalments, within six months. The undermentioned were fined as follow for breaches of 1 heir prohibition ordors:—Grace Vicliardson. ,i'l; Mar.v Patterson, ,f'2; Edward Bloomfield, ,C 3; and William Conrick, Jtii Court costs, "s., were ordered (0 be paid in each case.