LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 July 1917, Page 7

LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

P-ESBRVED DECISION. At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr. A. Orooke, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the case in which Thomas Kendall (Mr. J. H. Qnillinm) was charged iwith having on Juno -X taken a ■bottle* of wuiskv into a proclaimed area without the .bottle being addressed to the person to whom it was sent or so labelled as to show the nature and quantity of the content". The facts were admitted. The defendant was the driver of the coaeh between Tongaporutu and Uruti, and a man named Richards drove the coaeh between 'Uruti and YVaitara. Kendall asked Richards to get him a bottle of whisky, and Richards did so, giving it to Kendall at I'ruti, which was in a licensed district Kendall, however, took the whisky into a proclaimed district on his return journey, and for doing so lie was charged with a breach of the law. The defence -was tliat Kendall obtained the whisky for his own use, and that he was entitled to carry it into a proclaimed area Under the Act of 1908, but Rub-inspector Mcllveney contended that the provisions of the Act of 1014 superseded those of the Act of 1908, and made it an offence for any person to take liquor into a proclaimed area either for himself or for anyone else, unless it was properly labelled and addressed.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that with respect to any proclaimed area it was not lawful for any person whatever to send or deliver therein or to any place situato therein any package containing '.lquor, unless such package bore distinctly written or printed on the outside thereof a statement that it contained liquor. Mr. Quilliam had contended that as his client was taking only one quart of whisky he came within the exemption, bub his Worship did not think this was so, but that the section of the Act meant liquor in any quantity, however small. The whole difficulty in this case was tiie meaning of the word "sent." and he had been invited by the Sub-Inspector to hold that the word would cover a man taking liquor with him. The dictionary definition of tiie word sent was "a thing conveyed or transmitted by an intermediary to another person or place," and it would be an abuse of language to say that liquor taken by a person for himself into a (proclaimed area was sent to himself. If a person wished to obtain liquor in a roundabout way he could post it addressed to himself, the post office being the intermediary. If he adopted this mode of getting liquor into a proclaimed area be must atato on the packi'ge the nature and quantity of the liquor and his name and address, however small or however large the quantity might be. He (his 'Worship) could not think it was the intention, on the other hand, that a person might take a case or several cases of liquor with him without describing the nature and the quantity of the liquor. It seemed that there was a prohibition against liquor being taken by any person into a proclaimed area, unless under the conditions specified, and his Worship thought, effect could be given to this section by holding that a person who took liquor into a proclaimed area must state the nature and quantity of liquor, and, if he is taking it for any other person, must state the name and address of such person; but if he is taking it for himself, as there is no person to whom it ;' 'being sent there is no name and address for him to state. He was not .bound to state his own name and address, although it would be prudent for him to do so. The defendant would lie convicted, but as it was quite certain that he had had no idea he wis breaking the law tho merely nominal penalty of Is, with £2 4s costs, would bo imposed. Sub-Inspector Mcllvcney, in answer to a ren.ark from the Bench, said the police would not think of taking proceedings against a man carrying a flask for his own use.

CASE DISMISSED. The hearing of the charge against Victor 11. Mehrtens, adjourned from last sittings, was resumed. Tho informations alleged that on June 3, at Mokau, the defendant had (1) kept whisky for sale; (2) kept whisky for another person named W. H. Tiogcrs; and (3) stealing four bottles of whisky, the property of W. H. Rogers. At the previous hearing the chaises of theft and of keeping liquor for another person wero dismissed. Mr. J. 11. Qnilliam, who appeared for this defendant, said ins Worship would remember that this ease had been before the Court a week previously and adjourned. The facts were that a man named Roger* had ordered some whisky and had authorised Mehrten to receive | order. Mehrten got delivery of four bottles. He claimed that he was entitled *o use one, but admitted having also used the other three. It was not denied, and never had been, that Mehrten had received the whisky and used it, tout he had been charged with keeping it lor sale as well as keeping it for another •person and also with having stolen it. At the previous hearing lie (Mr. QuilHam) had desired to call a witness, a Mr. ■Grimmer, to show that the whisky had been consumed by Mehrten and his friends, seven in all, but Mr. Grimmer was not then present. lie was, however, now in attendance.

Kobert trimmer, clerk, residing at Waitiiru, said lie had gone to Mokau to •kike stock in Mr. Main's stofe, near the i>rarding-honse. Me liad been at Jrlokau about -live weeks, living at Mr. 'Main's private house. One evening in June the rumor got round that some whisky was coining to the boarding-house. Witness and Mr. Main went to Mehrten's room 'and t'oui'd a man named Taylor there. They opened a bottle of whisky and had fume of it. After tea they went hack again, when there were others there. Mr. : Main and 'witness left aibont 11 o'clock, when one bottle of whisky and .part of had been consumed. On tho fol- ! lowing morning they went over again. To witness' knowledge live men took part in drinking the whisky. There was absolutely no sale.

To Sub-Inspector Mo.llwncy: All of them partook of the whisky' as guests of Mehrten. Witness had gone specifically to Mehrten's room to drink nvJiisky. ft was Mehrten's whisky they drank, ■not Taylor's. While at 'Mokau he had obtained whisky for himself, which he had shared with friends. To his Worship: Personally he know that three bottles of whisky had been consumed on the evening the whisky arrived and on the following day. In Mokau it nvas quite a matter of indifference to witness whom lit- drank with; they were all decent people there. In connection with this ease it had become known that the whisky was coming, and all were on the qui vive for its arrival. It .was the custom in Mokau for residents to get whisky and share it with all and sundry. His Worship said there was really no proof of keeping for sale- tue defendant appeared to have kect the liquor

for Us own consumption and the entertainment of !Mb friends. Perhaps it was an extremely regrettable thing that liquor should be consumed in that district in such large quantities, but with that he had nothing to do. ,The information would be dismissed. ADJOURNED. John Mathieson was charged with having kept liquor for sale at Awakino. On the application of Mr. D. Hutchen, who appeared for the defendant, the case was adjourned till August 8.