A NEW DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 17 July 1928, Page 4

A NEW DEFENCE

METHYLATED SPIRIT NOT LIQUOR?

AUCKLAND, July 13. Can it mail be “thoroughly drunk” and yet not bo “legally drunk ?” Counsel for a man who was prosecuted at Opotiki to-day on a charge of having procured liquor while he was prohibited contended that the man had procured methylated spirit, which was not “liquor” under the Licensing Act. The man charged was JE. J. Burton and his counsel was Mr N. V. Hodgson. Constable Breed stated that on June 7th he saw Burton under the influence of drink. Ho had been prohibited on June 2nd. Sergeant McAllister, who was with the constable, corroborated his evidence.

Mi Hodgson said the charge should I'.' dismissed as the prosecution had given no evidence to show that the defendant had purchased op procured liquor. It was common knowledge* that when a confirmed drinker was desperate for liquor ho sometimes took to drinking methylated spirit. Under the Licensing Act methylated spirit was not defined as liquor. Counsel then read an extract from a wrapper which was token from a painkiller hottle. This showed that painkiller contained not less than 91 per cent of proof •spirit. This, counsel said, was double that contained in whisky. There were a. number of patent medicines containing a largo proportion of alcohol. It was even possible to got intoxicated by drinking red ink or varnish. ' Defendant may have been under the influence of liquor, but it was possible that he had been in that condition through the drinking of any of a number of preparations. Mr K. C. Lcvvey, S.M., asked if the police had had a doctor examine the man to see whether he was intoxicated through drinking liquor or a preparation containing alcohol, hut not defined in tiis Act as liquor. If counsel’s fb:iTerjicn was valid the onus would bo o:i 'the defendant to show he was not under the influence o r : liquor. Perronally, he did not agree with the contention. Tbs Mur id rate said the police m.ir’it !•••» asked to go miles in l/i the toon try to arrest a., prohibited m.an who was hopelessly drunk" and they might move lie was kinder the influence of liquor, but according to Mr Hodgson’s contention they would need to get a doctor to pump th" man out. This would b> rimnlv opening the door so wide that the Act would bo a dead letter. The onus was on the defendant to Drove lie was not intoxicated through drinking liquor. Hr Hodgson admitted defendant may have been thoroughly drunk, but lie contended ho was not drunk under the Act.

The Magistrate said he considered the police had done all they could humanly do to show that defendant, was drunk. The Act had been passed essentially to benefit the individual. Mr Hodgson agreed that the police had clone ( nll they could, hut they had not shown that defendant had procured libuor. Burton was at present away in Auckland. The Magistrate said there was something in what Mr Hodgson had said, if he wished to go on with the. case it would bo adjourned until next Court day to give defendant an opportunity to give evidence. The case was accordingly adjourned until August Bth. .