Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 28, 1898. The Liquor Law.

Manawatu Herald, 23 July 1898, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 28, 1898. The Liquor Law.

+ No New Zealand Statute is remarkable for its clearness of expression as to its intention, but in some cases the Liquor Laws appear more astounding in its provisions than some other laws of this colony. On Thursday a man was proceeded against under clause 169 of " The Licensing Act 1881 " which is as follows : — " Whenever Justices shall in execution of the foregoing provisions have prohibited the sale of liquor to any such drunkard if any other person shall with a knowledge of such prohibition give, sell, purchase or procure for or on behalf of such prohibited person, or for his or her use any such liquor he or she shall forfeit upon conviction for every such effence a sum not exceeding five pounds." The man charged pleaded guilty to the act, but in extenuation 6aid he understood, or hail baen told, that the order against the person supplied with liquor had run out. If his statement was a true one it seems rather bard that he should be fined, as he wa3. The case we are quoting is perhaps an extreme one. as it showed that the person punished was aware that the person he had procured liquor for had once been prohibited. Of course knowing this he acted wrongly in anyway assisting the unfortunate man to get drink. Supposing however that the convicted person had used fewer words and shnply asserted that he did not know the person supplied had had an order of prohibition issued against him. Would the Court have fiued him all the same ? The whole reading of the clause rests upon whether the procurer of liquor had " a knowledge of such prohibition " and this is just whore the (rouble comes in, in a prosecution, as the law stands at present. The only way the prosecution has under the Act of 1881 is to show lhat the procurer had a knowlodge of such prohibition, and a case could only be made out, not on the fir.-t offence, but on a repetition of it, after the person had been duly warned. This trouble had been foreseen, by a clause in " The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment Act 1895" which we take leave to think nullifies the section already quoted in the Act of 1881 as the interpretation clause says the Act is to be read with the other Acts " if not inconsistent with the context," and we think it will be at once seen that the clause we are relying on is inconsistent with clause !69 of the Act of 1881. To make the matter as plain as we can we quote clause 27 of " The Alcoholic IVquors Sale Control Act Amendment 1895 "a3 follows :— •• (1) Every person who, knowing that any one is ilis subject of a prohibition order, accompanies him into any licensed promises, or in any way, directly or indirectly, procures liquor for him, or incites or assists him to procure or drink liquor, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds ; (2) In any proceedings under this section the burden of proof shall be on the defendant to show that he did not know of the existence of such pro hibition order." It will be noticed that the lost quotation throws all the burden of proof on the defendant, which appears was anticipated by the 1881 Act, as that duty, of prov iug knowledge, rested on the prosecution. Both ways are difficult of proof, except in a second offence, when the fact of a warning having been given previously could be proved by the prosecution. Of course the last act is an absurdity, that of asking a defendant to prove a negative. He can assert, in the most solemn manner possible that he did not know a fact, but how can he in any other way prove this ? The law of

1881 is fairer, if it ia in force as regards 169. Anyhow in the Court on Thursday the man wag fined simp'y on his own statement which may not have been that which he de?i ed to explain, and thus he received punishment for a wrong act, helping to find drink for a man who he knew had been prohibited, but it was certainly not what he was chafed with, and on the charge not one tittle of proof was brought forv.ard. S ipposing that the punished man had been misled, or say that perhaps soon some person is actually misled into supplying liquor to a prohibited person, what is his position? He can only swear that he did not know of the fact, and it i 3 possible, we have as a fact a variety of magistrates, the presiding one might want 11 proof !" What proof do we all go about with ? This is where badly worded Acts and curious decision? place the whole public in a most dangerous position. We again come tp the tempter. The man for whom liquor is obtained in a clandestine "manner, is he not to be punished or blamed ? There is one thing very clear, that i?, the prohibited person would be aware of the Order against himself, anrl thus by inciting some ono to procure liquor for him, \v> . wasjccl.i.og them to' a breach of the law. In the case we have partially reviewed there appears to be little choice between the procurer and the drinker, and fqual punishment should ba mtted out. Taking all tho facts as th j y stand w g-'t an illustration of t^e d ffi^ulty h setting the fiametfs .of a law which is to affect the personal acts of the individual mere r?p dally on p>in s the fueling of th« pubic is mt with it ; and the diffi"ully the police hive to con .end ngcmst in trying to do their duty as defined by Ihe Liquor Laws ; and finilly, what ia of much more impor ancf, tho danger innocent members of the community run when mixed up in any way with a person of drunken habits. These difficulties are sufficient to show the need of every case of this description being most carefully inquired into, and of having every fact proved up to the hilt.