THE LICENSING ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 979, 27 August 1903, Page 4

THE LICENSING ACT.

CHARGES AGAINST COUNTY HOTELKEEPERS. At tbe Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., Maurice Ho°an, licensee of the Roseland Hotel, was charged with supplying drink during prohibited hours to four young men— Samuel Higgs, Thomas Hoy, Robert Brown, and David Nelson on Sunday, August 9tb, they not being travellers or lodgers. . Tbe caso for the prosecution was that the young men in question had gono for a drive to Kaitaratubi, and had stopped at each hotel on routo for refreshments. As they had not reached their journey’s end they were not entitled to bo thus supplied. His Worship said that until lately it was generally supposed that a person was entitled to liquor if ho travelled three miles from tho place whero he slept the preceding Disht. ....

Mr Rees : That was tho belief, and there was no intent on the part of defendants to break tho law. Counsel for tho defenco, in pleading guiltv, asked His Worship to deal with the defendants under the 87th section of the Justices of the Poace Act, which provides that the information may bo dismissed u it is shown there was no intention to break the law. If His Worship had any doubt whether he could act under that section ho could state a case to tho Supreme Court as to whether such a case may uc settled under this section. Tho penalty of having a conviction endorsed upon the license was a very severe punishment. His Worship : That is why I pointed out that discretionary power should be given to Magistrates. Mr Rees considered that such power was given in the section quoted by him. His Worship stated ho had a little doubt as to whether he had such discretionary

power. „ ~ Mr Rees thought the safest way would be to state a case to the Supreme Court, which would bo sitting in the course of a week or so. Parliament could be appealed to, and it was quite certain relief would be given. Not even tho most ardent of prohibitionists would say that a man should be punished because of doing a thing which ho thought he was entitled to do. Hfs Worship said a plea of guilty would have to be recorded in the cases. Mr Rees decided to enter a plea of guilty, and be asked the Bench that the defendant should not bo convicted. His Worship said that he would take time to consider the question as to whether he had discretion. A similar decision was arrived at in the ease of Cornelius O’Connell, licensee of tho Waerenga a-hika Hotel. In the caso against Cornelius Neonan, xf Ormond Hotel, Mr Rees stated there were slightly different circumstances which would lead him to plead not guilty. The case might be allowed to stand over. The defendant admitted selling the liquor, but certain representations had been made to him by the young men. On his application the case was adjourned until the

afternoon. On resuming His Worship said ho had come to the conclusion that the cases did not coma within the provisions of section 87 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, and he would not be justified in dealing with it under that section. The defendant having pleaded guilty to the offence charged ho was bound to record a conviction, and when a conviction wa3 recorded section 165 of the Act of 1881, under which the information was laid, was mandatory that the conviction should bo endorsed upon tho license. Counsel for the defendant had suggested that defendant might bo bound ovot to come up for sentence when called upon, but the difficulty of this course was that the licensee might transfer his license, and thereby got boyond the power of the Court, and in case of another conviction His Worship would not bo able to endorse the license. If Mr Bees thought fit he would defer sentence for three or four weeks to enable counsel to apply to the Supremo Court if he wished to do so. ,

Mr Bees pointed out,that the law on the point had always be a read in a different fashion. His Worship said it was only through tho newspaper reports that they were acquainted with tho decision, as the official reports were not out yet. He was quite prepared to give 'Mr Boe3 every assistance, and if he had discretionary power there would bo no difficulty. He would certainly not inflict a heavy penalty. Mr Bees asked His Worship not to enter a conviction in the caso, but to give him time to state it to the Supreme Court. His Worship accordingly agreed to defer sentence until after tho sittings of the Supreme Court at Gisborne. Mr Bees said he had decided to take the same action in C. Neenan’s cose, although there were one or two small

differences. His Worship said it was often a hardship in cases that he had not discretionary power. Mr Bees thought magistrates should have discretionary power. He would see that the case was brought before the Supreme Court, and on the decision there tho three cases would rest. Cornelius Necnan was similarly charged, and Mr Bees pleaded guilty. His Worship said the license in this case would be retained in Court, and sentence was deferred until September 23rd as in the other two cases.

Judgment was delivered by His Worship in the caso against William Law, of the Ivaitaratabi Hotel, of supplying liquor to four young men on Sunday, August 9th, during prohibited hours. Defondant was convicted, and fined £lO and costs, the conviction to be endorsed on the license. A further information against defendant of exposing liquor for salo was withdrawn.