THE LICENSING ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 977, 25 August 1903, Page 2

THE LICENSING ACT.

ALLEGED SUNDAY TRADING.

At tho Police Court yesterday morning William Law, licensee of the Kaitaratabi Hotel, was charged with having committed a breach of the Licensing Act by selling liquor on Sunday, August 9th. Mr W. L. Rees appeared for the defendant. Sergeant Siddells in opening the case for tho prosecution, said that four young men left Gisborne on the day in question for a drive in the country. They arrived at Kaitaratahi about throe or four o’clock in the afternoon, and went into the hotel. The slide of the bar was open, and defohdant was in the bar. They were supplied with liquor without boing questioned os to whether they wero travellers, although Mr Law might have surmised they were travellers by seoing tho traps outside. He considered that if the sale of one drink only had taken place no breach of the Act would have been occasioned, as they had arrived at the terminus of their journey, but they afterwards went out on tho road, and returned to the bar, and in the course of about an hour were served with five or six drinks. The Sergeant pointed out that under section 22 of the Act if one man purchased drink and it was consumed by another that an offence was committed. In support of the prosecution evidence was given by Samuol Higgs, Robert Chaa. Brown, Thomas Hoigb, and David Nolson. .-; After a short adjournment, Mr Roes said he did not propose to call evidence, and would confine himself to the question of law. He was prepared, to admit that more than one drink had boen supplied. The legal question was laid down in sub section 5 of section 22 of the Act of 1895, which provided that a licensee was allowed to sell any lodger or traveller, although it was optional for him to do so. The evidence showed that the four men were bona fide travellers, and an important point was whether a publioan was restricted to serving them with one drink. His Worship thought that this point had been decided by Judge Denniston. Sergeant Siddells said that the ruling of the Judge was that reasonable refreshments should be supplied.

Mr Rees submitted there was no difference between a lodger and a traveller. They were in the same category. Whilst the men were at. Kaiterat&hi they were bona fide travellers and entitled to refreshments. A publican could not be prosecuted for supplying a traveller or lodger with more than one drink whilst having meals.

His Worship pointed out that in this ease it was not claimed that the men were haviDg meals. Mr Rees said that one man might think one glass reasonable, whilst others might think different. His Worship : All the drinks were supplied in three-quarters of an hour. Mr Eeos contended that the question of time was immaterial. He considered it was an important case, as the point had never been decided. Regarding reasonable refreshments, ho did not remember Judge Denniston ruling on this point. He considered unless drink was supplied in such

quantities so as to occasion a breach of tfie law, it could not be said that the refreshments were unreasonable. * His Worship: Then according to your argument a man could go on drinking to midnight in the country. Would you call five or six pints of beer reasonable refreshments ? Mr Rees: Yes, if it did not produce intoxication. His Worship: It did in one case at least.

Mr Rees replied that if intoxication were caused that was a distinct offence in itself.

Sergeant Siddells disagreed with Mr Rees that a traveller and lodger were on the same footing. A lodger lived on the premises and could be supplied at any time. A traveller was on a different basis, and it was misconstruing the English language to say that men an hour after they had reached a place were travellers arriving from a journey. He quite believed that Mr Law could serve a man with two or more drinks on their arrival while they were at the bar, but directly they moved away their status as travellers had Deen destroyed. It had been shown that the men had left the bar on several occasions, and it could not be said that they were travellers.

His Worship : This question so far aa I am aware has never been settled. I will take time to look into the matter before giving judgment. Judgment was reserved until to-morrow morning at 11 o’clock.

A further charge against the defendant of exposing liquor during prohibited hours was adjourned until to-morrow.