PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1758, 11 September 1917, Page 3

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

A RECENT JUDGMENT

A telegram from New Plymouth as to the decision of the Supreme Court in an appeal heard there recently, published in onr columns, is likely to produce a misleading impression (says last night’s Evening Post). It states that the effect of the decision is that a prohibited person may be convicted of obtaining liquor not merely in the district or districts to which the order relates, hut anywhere in the Dominion. That is correct. It was decided long ago by Mr Justice Williams that short of obtaining liquor he was liable to be convicted anywhere in New Zealand if ho merely entered a licensed house. The message goes on to say: “It is qnile lawful for a licensed person in such districts to supply him even it he knows of the existence of the order.” “This, wo are authoritatively informed, cannot be true, and is quite misleading. Such a licensed person is liable to a lino for merely permitting the prohibited person to enter or be in his house, and can be convicted without proof of supplying or of any intention to supply the man. This is made clear by the judgment in question. In point of form the conviction would be for allowing a prohibited person to be on the premises. Iso licensed person can sell otherwise than .on his premises, so that the conviction is easily obtained, as a licensee who knowingly sells liquor to a prohibited person has necessarily committed the oflonee of allowing him to be on the promises, and in this ease the Magistrate cannot reduce the fine below £o. In the New Plymouth case the licensee did not know that the sale was to a prohibited person, but his barmaid knew it, and was lined for selling to the man.