LIQUOR AND NO-LICENSE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 321, 17 December 1910, Page 3

LIQUOR AND NO-LICENSE.

SOME STRINGENT PROVISIONS. An interesting criticism of the new Licensing Act and the restrictions it imposes upon the introduction into nolicense districts, was made by Mr J. S. Palmer, president of the Auckland and New Zealand Licensed Victuallers' Association, in conversation with a "Herald" reporter. Mr Palmer expressed the opinion that, taken all round, the new Act was an improvement on the previous law, more particularly with respect to the licensing polls and their possible results. To demonstrate this, he would refer to the legislation proposed by the Sate ,' Mr Seddon, in which it was suggested that a no-license area should be really '-. made a prohibition area. The proposal j was so strongly resisted by that sec- ; tion of the. community of whose doc- > trine up to that time had been absolute prohibition that it was abandoned, ; and by subsequent legislation, introduced upon the subject in 1901, Mr ; Seddon in effect said that if the prin- j ciple of no-!icense-no-liquor was j not acceptable, they would have noJicense with pienty of liquor, and under the amending Bill of 1904 provision was made for the introduction of liquor into no-license areas in ' practically unlimited quantities. Cer- ; tain condition's were imposed in connection with the sending of liquor into such areas, but there was no limit as to the quantity of liquor that might be lawfully consumed in such districts. The country had had what might be termed an extended trial of that " system, and he ventured to express the opinion that the results were very different from those anticipated from the temperance point of view. The new law, in his opinion, was based upon more equitable and logical, although restrictive, lines than any previous measure dealing with option polls. The objectionable and iniquitous reduction issue was altogether eliminated, and clearly-defined issues would now be placed before the electors. For the first time the moderate man was brought face to face with no-license under rigid restrictions, which meant that the line was just drawn at absolute prohibition. _ So drastic were some of the provisions of the new Act that it appeared very : doubtful whether a resident in a nolicense area could entertain his guests with alcoholic refreshment and at the same time comply in all respects with the requirements of the law. The section which Mr Palmer considered so drastic was No. 38, which provides:—"lt shall not be lawful within any no-license district or within any area to which section 273 of the principal Act is applicable, for any person whomsoever to store or keep liquor for any other person, or to lease, let, hire, or permit, or suffer to be used, any building or place belonging to, or occupied by him, or in his possession or under his control, or any part of such building or place, for the purpose of storing or keeping therein or thereon, any liquor for or by any other person." If the letter of the law was enforced it became a question whether any man's home would be safe from invasion by the police. Clause (> of section 37 read: "For the purpose of this section premises shall be deemed to be a place of resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor notwithstanding the fact that they are open only for the use of particular persons, or particular classes of persons, and are not open to all persons deairou3 of using the same." This provision was evidently aimed at the locker system in clubs, and at the consumption of liquor on sports grounds, but, read in conjunction with clause 1 of section 3S (quoted above), its effect was much more drastic. _ A man seemed to run a risk in giving Honor to his guests for an evening. Clause 1 of section 38 prohibited him from "storing or keeping" upon his premises "liquor for . . . any other person." The police might raid his premises while he was entertaining his guests, and might adduce ev7dence of previous gathering of a similar nature having been held on his premises, urging that the house has become "a place of resort" within the meaning of the Act. Some magistrates might find that section 37 amply safeguarded the man in the nolicense district, but others might hold a contrary view. Another aspect of the law not generally appreciated, continued Mr Palmer.' was that it threw a now and "•rave lvspnnsihilily upon owners of property in -o-! ; .,:ense districts. Seci tion ! action? of their U nants, and rendered rhe-m liable to the same penalties as those that might be incurred by such tenants. If a man who was entertaining his friends was held to have "stored or kept liquor for other persons" on his premises, the man who had "leased, let, hired or permitted or suffered" such premises, to be so used was liable to be penalised to an even greater extent. If he owned a number of houses ami several of the tenants were convicted under section 38, the owner would be deemed guilty also, and having been convicted more than once would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. He might be accused of taking an extreme view of the law, but it was shared by gentlemen who had greater experience of the law than, he had.