Selling Liquor to Children. Important Judgment. (BY TELEGRAPH—OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 188, 22 January 1887, Page 1

Selling Liquor to Children. Important Judgment. (BY TELEGRAPH — OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Christchurch, Jan. 15. Mr Beetham, R.M., gave judgment in the casea for supplying liquor to boys apparently under sixteen The boys in question were found quite drunk, one being absolutely helpless, and the disgusting spectacle excited a good deal of attention at the Court. The evidence of the boys showed liquor was obtained at the Palace and Criterion Hotels, in one case being supplied by the wife of the licensee, and in the other by a barmaid. The defence contended that the boys were not "apparently" under age ; that the licensees had given careful instructions, and had no knowledge of the supply. Mr Beetham said he had given the matter careful attention, as the offence was a very serious one. He was of opinion there was no case against the publicans. With regard to the other defendants, Mra Sheppard was the wife of one of the publicans, and Miss Hopkina had been a barmaid for many years, and of course should have known what ehe was <Jo»ag. The question really was should the Bench exercieeany discretion with, regard to the apparent ages of persons supplied? He thought the Bench ought to oxerciee such discretion. It seemed to him if the bar tenders exercised reasonable common sense they would have considered the boys to be "apparently" under 16. Unless the Bench was to exercise discretion on that point, the Act was a dead letter. He believed Mr Stringer had gone so faT as to argue it was so, but he did not agree with that view. There was one important case, in which the Acfc made a distinction which was noo really different. The Legislature had said it was quite right that boy.-5 under 16, and, for anything he knew, girls under sixteen also, should be supplied with intoxicating liquora— beer, brandy, whisky or what not — provided they brought pitcher or bottle to the hotel, and did not consume the liquor on the premises, but that it was an offence to allow them to drink it on the premises. It seemed to him it would be very much better if children were not allowed to come within cooee of liquor at all, if he might use the expression. They should not be allowed to enter a public-house. If people wanted to send for liquor they should send persons of mature age. It was drawing a very fine line to say the publican was at liberty to supply children with liquor to take away, whereas if he supplied it to them to be drunk on the premises he was liable to a fine. There had been several cases of children being charged with drunkenness recently, and the beat thing to do was to keep them away from hotels altogether. It would be a good thing if some legislation could be devised for that purpose. In the present case, each of the two bar keepers would be fined £5. The information against the licensees would be dismissed.