Prohibition Orders.

Manawatu Herald, 18 June 1903, Page 2

Prohibition Orders.

the responsibility of LICENSEES. Dr M’Arthur, B.M.,gave judgment this morning in the case in which James Walsh, licensee of the Panama Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor to a prohibited, person. His Worship laid it was admitted that the licensee had knowledge of the | prohibition order, but it was denied that he’ had a knowledge of the person prohibited. that-the knowledge of the licensee- r in .respect of the prohibited person -Hiss'- hot proved* and that the onus of proof Jay on the prosecution, then be bad no hesitation in affirming that the system of prohibition orders would be a solemn farce. The question turned upon whether the:; t worfU of the section, taken in connection'with the other provisions of the Act as to prohibited persons, should be construed as constituting an offence only where the licensed person knows or has the means of knowing that the person supplied is a prohibited person, or whether there is aft. offence although no such knowledge is shown. Ha. was of opinion that the 'words of the section absolutely prohibit the sale of liquor to a prohibited person, and that the want of know-ledge-as to the identity of such person was no answer to the charge, but might be pleaded only in mitigation of the penalties that might'bo imposed, t The words of referred to of *b||o®l6r, not of the" person. It was also pleaded' by counsel that iff every criminal' offence there must be a guilty mind. That maxim, however, was not without exception. There were many modern statues to which it did not apply, and it now .became necessary to look at the object And language of each' Act that is under consideration to see whether,and how far knowledge was essential tb create the offence. Clearly the object of this part of theTdcensirig Act was to prevent the presence 1 of prohibited persons on licensed premises, , and the sale of liquor to such, persons. In order to secure the co-operation of the licensee, it was not unfair to throw upon him the responsibility of determining as far as he could who are the persons referred to in the prohibition orders of which he received copies. The case .’of Sherras v. De Rutzen was to be distinguished, inasmuch as the publican was actively misled. The defendant. wo,uld_ be fined 40s, with 7s coats —Post. 4 ' *