TRANSPORTER GUILTY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20106, 28 November 1939, Page 6

TRANSPORTER GUILTY

LIQUOR AT DANCE MAGISTRATE’S RULING RELUCTANT DECISION (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. “There is only one decision in this particular case, and that is that the defendant is guilty,” said Mr. E. C. Levvey, in the Magistrate’s Court, when giving his decision in a case in which Colin Curragh, who transported liquor to a dance hall in his car, was charged under the new law.

The magistrate added that he had come to the decision reluctantly, especially in view of the excessive penal nature of the statute. He regretted that the defendant was not in a position to appeal, as he felt that the question raised by the meaning of the word “control” was an important one and worthy of the attention of the Appeal Court.

Curragh, who was convicted and ordered to pay costs, was charged that while a dance was being held at the Lincoln Public Hall on November 5 be had in his possession or control a twogallon jar containing beer. Owner of Beer Dealt With At last Thursday’s sitting of the court another young man, named Childs, tire owner of the jar and the beer, who was a passenger in Curragh’s car, was fined 10s on a charge similar to that brought against Curragh. For Curragh, Mr. W. R. Lascelles then contended that his client did not have possession of the beer, and the magistrate indicated that he agreed on this point. The question of control was different, however, said the magistrate, and he adjourned the case until yesterday morning for counsel to submit further argument.

Dealing with the meaning of* the word “control,” Mr, Lascelles said that there was no definite legal concept of the word. In all the definitions there was an element connecting authority, power or management with the exercise of control. There was always an element of authority or regulation. Drastic Section The jar in this case, said Mr. Lascelles, had always been in the control of its owner, Childs. Curragh had never checked or restricted its use and had no effective control so far as the distribution and consumption of liquor were concei'ned. The magistrate: This is certainly a drastic section. And “or” in “possession or control” is an important word. Can it be said that Curragh had no check or restraint if the other man was away? Mr. Lascelles: There was no active exercise of check or restraint in this particular case, sir.

The magistrate added that it would have been easier if Curragh had been charged with aiding and abetting. Counsel told the magistrate that the defendant was not in a position to take the case to the Appeal Court. Sub-Inspector W. E. Packer, who appeared for the police, stressed that the law only applied to public dances and did not affect private ones.