CHRISTMAS LIQUOR HAMPERS

Evening Star, Issue 20136, 28 March 1929, Page 6

CHRISTMAS LIQUOR HAMPERS

WHERE DID SALE TAKE PLACE ? JUDGMENT FOR DUNEDIN LICENSEE [Special to the ‘ Stae.l TIM ABU, Marcli 27. Reserved judgment was given by Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning in a case ot considerable interest to hotel licensee!* and to members of the public purchasing Christmas hampers of liquor. The case was heard on February -8,; when the deieudanf, Arthur’A. T.aape, licensee of the Grand Hotel. Dunedin,; was represented by Mr L. Pi. Pinch. The defendant, said the magistrate,was charged that on December 21, at Tiinaru, being flic holder of a publican s license for premises known as the Grand Hotel, Dunedin, he did sell liquor where ho was not authorised by his license to sell—namely, Messrs A. and T. Burt’s premises, Woolcombe street. Tiinaru, being a breach ol section 195 of the Licensing Act, 1908. The information was laid on January 01. 1929.

The following facts were proved, continued tlie magistrate:—A Mr Smith, commercial traveller whom defendant had engaged to solicit orders lor liquor,called upon a Mr Rroon at the latter’s business premises in Tiinaru on October 23, 1928. and obtained an order ior. liquor. Breen .signed an order form addressed to “the licensee, Grand Hotel,”* requesting him to supply to him certain liquor mentioned at the prices quoted in the order. The terms were “delivery on receipt of not cash.” Tim order continued; “Deliver to address before Christmas, and was signed by Breen, who added his address, care of A. and T. Burt. Lid., Timrirn. This order was received by defendant at his licensed premises, and in duo course the goods ordered were taken, iroin a cellar at (hose premises and eased up, and the case was marked for Breen. A list was typed at the hotel and forwarded in a carrier at Tiinaru. • This list sot out the names and addresses of people (including Breen) to whom flic carrier had to deliver eases, and Ibe number on each ease and the amounts the carrier had to collect from the re'.pcctivo purchasers on delivery of the eases. On December Kb T 928. those case** were delivered to the New Zealand Express Company from the licensed premises for consignment to Clarke, (Its carrier at Tiinarn, who. on December 21, duly delivered to Breen the numbered case containing the liquor ordered, bv him. Breen at the same time paid the agreed price (o the carrier, who sent his rlienne (o defendant for Breen’s and other monevs collected.

The (jiiestion, continued Mr Orr Walker. was whether the sale to Preen was made at Messrs A. and T. Hurt’s premises or at the licensed premises. It might be that Ibe circumstances might show that there was an e.xoeulory contract of sale made at A. and T. Burt’s premises on October 2.T. and upon tho authority of the 'rase Bryant v. Kales (New Zeal a n/| Law Reports, Pllfi) an (•Fence would have been committed by defendant. Mi Finch, for the defence, however, rightly pointed out (hat if this was the ease the information had been laid too late, and no conviction could bo entered, as .section 241 of th» Licensing Act provided that all prosecutions for offences under that Act shall be commenced within three months after the date of the breach, and nob later. If he had to decide the ease upon this question, continued the magistrate, he should be inclined to hold that (lie evidence in (his ease did not support the allegation that an executory, contract was made at Timaru on October 2.T last. He thought, that it went no further than showing that Smith simply received an order and submitted it to Pa apc for areeptauee or rejection at Dunedin. The information, however, alleged the offence was, committed on. December 21. in that mi that date lh« liquor was delivered and paid for nb Timaru. It was deal (bat if the transaction on October 2-'} amounted tea “sale. ’ Ihe information must he dismissed as having been laid too late, hut be was asked to decide that the delivery and payment at A. and T. Burt's on December 21 amounted to a “ sale ” within the meaning of the Incensing Act. He thought, according to the authorities, that the sale took place on llio licensed premises. It was there that; the order was received and accepted; the goods of the description in tho order were there selected, and were there appropriated by being placed m a ease and marked for the purchaser, and were delivered from there to tho carrier. He did not think that in tho circumstances the fact that the liquor was delivered and at the same time paid for at Timaru showed a sale off tho premises. The information was therefore dismissed. Five further similar charges against defendant were adjourned till April L,