A TECHNICAL POINT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 50, 23 November 1926, Page 6

A TECHNICAL POINT

SLY GROG CONVICTION MAN NOT “FOUND - ’ ON PREMISES BY Telegraph—Press Association. Invercargill, November 22. Can a nn” who admits he went to a place of resort for the consumption of liquor in a no-license area be convicted or- a charge of being "found” on such premises, even though lie was nut actually found there by the police? This interesting point was decided by Mr. Justice Sim in a judgment given here to-day At a recent sitting of the Supreme Court Hi Honour heard an appeal by Sydney Raymond "Braxton against the decision of Mr. 11. J. Dixon, S.M.. in the case of Denis R. Shirgrue, police constable, Gore, v. S. R. Braxton. The rc■erved judgment of Mr. Justice Sim is as follows :—

"Appellant was convicted of the offence of being found on June 26. 1926, in a stable in Gordon Street. Gore, occupied bv John Latham, which was used as a place of resort for the consumption of liquor, Gore being ' situted in a no-license district. There was evidence before the Stipendiary Magistrate on whiclu he was justified in holding that the stable was used as a place of resell for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. The stable was visited bv tlie police on June 26. Appellant was not there when the police arrived and the only evidence of his having been there was a statement made by him to the police on the following dav. He admitted having taken a keg of beer to the stable on the date in question and having drunk some of the beer with Latham.

“The question to be determined by the Magistrate was whether or not in these circumstances appellant could be said to have been ‘found’ on the premises so as to justify a conviction under sub-section 4 of section 37 of the Act. That section provides that everv person (other than a constable) found on any premises kept or used in breach of the section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5. The Magistrate thought that there could be a conviction in every case where there was evidence which satisfied the Court that the person charged had been in fact on the premises. I atp unable to agree with this conclusion, which I think is not justified by the cases cited bv the Magistrate in his judgment ” After a lemdltv review of thcScases quoted, His Honour savs: “It is doing violence to common sense and to the ordinary meaning of the word to sav that a person has been ‘found’ in a particular place unless ther he some person who can lie said to have found him there. The result is that the apnea) is allowed, the conviction set aside, and the information dismissed \s the case is a police one, no order is made as to costs.”