KING COUNTRY LIQUOR.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 362, 20 May 1911, Page 5

KING COUNTRY LIQUOR.

| FORTY-SIX PROSECUTIONS. ; At tiis Rlagistrnte's Court on 1 Thursday he fore Mr F. O'li. Lough- ; nan, S.M., a large number of licensing ca?cs were he°rd. In fact, they were thai, numerous that the Clerk wan not exactly sure as to the nuni- ; her, hut his Worship in making a i tally ascertained that there were 4(3. i The greatest majority of the cases • were for having failed to supply the ; Clerk of the Court with the quantity i sent in, ana the name and address of ; the person sent to. There were also ' cases regarding notices that had been sent iate, over which there was a considerable amount of argument and rejections east on an officer of the ' Postal Department. ilis worship, however, pointed out that the alle- ; gations against the Post Office in ; duestion were wholesale, but. would extend the defendants the benefit of . the doubt. The number of cases cited and the complex nature of the various questions raised preclude a detailed report; for instance argument as to the contents of sundry buttles. Messrs Firday and Sharpies defended | most of the cases, and perhaps the ; most interesting was that of Alexander Kerr (Mr Finlay), hotelkeeper of i Waitara, charged with sending in five j dozen of a!c without having specified ; the quantity. After a considerable ■ amount of evidence had been brought forward as regards the quantity contained in a bottle of beer, his W'or- | ship ruled that the order was quite in ; form. Another case as regards quantity was where a case of "nips" had been sent in to Te Kuiti, but the Clerk of the Court not knowing its exact definition deemed it advisable to have a ruling of the Court. Mr J. B. Sharpies appeared for the defendant, and asked the Clerk if he had not ascertained what a nip was. He knew what a nip of whisky meant, but did not know what a nip of beer or stout meant. Mr Sharpies referred the Constable bad; to the sitting of the Court of January, when Mr VVarnock, Audit Inspector of Messrs L. and D. Nathan and Co., gave evidence, when the constable in his own cross-examination asked what a "nip" was, to which Mr Warnock replied that it was a reputed half-pint of which there were ten dozen in a case. Mr Finlay made general references to how business people were put to a j considerable amount cf inconvenience j by being brought to Te Kuiti for minor breaches of the Act. Any person of common-sense would instruct the3e people. In every instance there was an honest endeavour to comply with the Act. Mr Sharpies also mentioned that common-sense was a good essential in performing the duties that the Clerk had to do. These people who were cited in the present instances had to be present in order that their interests were protected.

Mr Finlay pointed cut that every licensed person in Waitara was in Te Kuiti. Any misdemeanour or breach of the law that occurred in their absence they would be responsible for. Ambiguity or doubt, perhaps, supplied the reason of so many citations. His Worship: If hotelkeepers would only make themselves mere conversant with the law by spending the sum of eighteen pence in purchasing a copy of the Licensing Act. It would i be making a very good investment. | One defendant, Mr Kennally, of Auckland, on being asked by his Worship, said that he had been a publican for twenty years. His Worship: Did you ever buy a copy of the Licensing Act. Witness: Yes. His Worship*. Did you hang it in the bar? Witness: No. I ban;; it in the office. Ilia Worship: I can see you were a pretty careful kind of publican. The cases were of great interest during the day, and a considerable crowd assembled at the Court, and the judgment of the Magistrate was patiently awaited in each case. In giving judgment the Magistrate said that in many cases evidence had been most unsatisfactory. He, however, recognised that loss of time and expense which people had been put to in coming to Te Kuiti was a very fair amount of penalty. Those cases in which a defence had been set up, apart from the number that had been dismissed, he would fine one shilling and costs. 'I his attitude was not one that was going to establish a precedent. He recognised that breaches had been committed, but owing to the law being practically new, he would give his decision as a warning. If further breaking of the law in these respects occurred he would have to administer it as he found it. A number of cases in which a plea of guilty had been entered, he would impose v. penalty of one shilling and costs. In making this nominal fine, his Worship said that it was because he had considered that these people who had come from a distance had been sufficiently penalised m loss of time and absence from their business. The leniency which he was extending for the reasons stated would not be established as a precedent, and he was thoroughly satisfied that the offences were due to carelessness. There was, however, one aspect of the Question which he recognised, and that was that brewers and owners of hotels did not keep their licensees thoroughly I posted. They were practially bond ; slaves. Regarding' the cases in which ! a postal official was concerned, he ! gave defendants the benefit of the ! doubt, but nevertheless he was not ! going to establish a precedent, where- ! by postal officials could be called to ! account if post-marks on letters were j not as they should be. It would be a ; dangerous principle.