LICENSING CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 March 1918, Page 6

LICENSING CASES.

SENDING LIQUOR TO PROCLAIMED ■:t'i*a£Oii AREA, i^.nit^iiiti, In the Magistrate's Court at New .Plymonth yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., several charges of a somewhat technical nature regarding the ordering of liquor to he sent into a proclaimed area, were heard. Richard O'Donnell. Michael O'Donnell, Arthur O'Donnell and Richard Frankpitt, of Tongaporutu. were charged separately and jointly with, on November 26, 191?, at Tongaporutu, giving an order for liquor, to the manager of the Egmont Brewery, to he sent into a proclaimed area, without giving the quantity of liquor for each person and the address of each person. Accused pleaded not guilty. Richard 0 Donnell was also charged with, on December 25, at Tongaporutu. keeping and storing liquor for Arthur O'Donnell in a proclaimed area. Do pleaded not guilty at first; but later entered a plea of guilty. Renjamin Wells, manager of the Egmont Brewery, New T'lvmouth, was charged Willi sendintr (-isht dozen bottles of beer into a promlaimed arei to M. O'Donnell, A. O'Donnell, R. O'Donnell and R. Frankpitt, Tongaporutu. without giving the quantity for each, and the names and addresses of each person on the outside of the packages. He pleaded guilty.

Sub-Inspector Hulton appeared for the police and Mr. A. IT. Johnstone represented the defendants. Mr. Wells was not represented. Suh-Insncetor TTuttou said it \v.i» a case in whiolrthe four men had nut their heads together and sent a joint order to the E°innnt Brewerv for a quantity of liquor to be sent to them. It was contended that the ioint order was nn i:. correct order, and he cited a judgment of Mr. Justice Sim in suoport. He said the order had to he signed bv the purchaser, who was also required to state his addr?f* and occupation and the latter had not been stated on the order, nor had the separate quantities for each been stated. Regarding the charge against the manager of the brewery it was claimed thai the addresses of all four of the men should have been attached to the cases containing the liquor, and the nnstntities for c\ n ]\ should have been shown, whereas the liquor was simply addressed to R. O'Donnell and Co. lie said the poiire had nothing to sav against the brewery. The manager had met the police in a thoroughly straightforward manner. In the other eases it appeared as if an old man (Michael O'Donnell) ill years of age, and a youth (Arthur O'Donnell) of about 17 years of age. had been induced to put their signatures to an order, and it was contended .if such practice was permitted it would encourage sly erne; soiling. The l ; qnor had been paid for by cheque received from Richard O'Donnell. The brewery company had sent the necessary no'tice to the clerk of the court at Te KuiC vlio had sent back an inquiry as to whether it was a ioint order or a separate order, and as the order was said to bo a joint order proceedings were instituted.

Mr. Johnstone raised a point of law that the charge as laid disclosed no offence. He admitted the order, but claimed that, as the signatures of the four men concerned were given and the address at the head of the letter was tin, address of each and all of them, they had complied with the provision o! the Act. He said he knew of no statutory clause requiring that the separate quantities for each person should be stated in writing, and urged at some length that the law allowed the separate quantities to be disclosed otherwise than in writing.

Sub-Inspector Hutton said that if the quantities required by each person did not have to be stated, then a highway would be opened up for the taking of liquor into no license and proclaimed areas. He further contended that the law did not allow joint orders; that orders must be signed separately, and '-lie quantity of liquor for each stated separately.

The Magistrate said that the address of "R. McDonnell and Co." might not be the name of any of the persons for whom the liquor was ordered. He did not suppose the men were a company tradin" as McDonnell and Co.

Mr. Johnstone further contended that all the information required bv the Act was contained in the order. If a eonjoint address was given it was possibly for convenience in packing and forwarding. The only thing the police had not got was the quantity of liquor each man was to receive and he submitted the Act did not require that. The Magistrate in deciding the point said he was certain the Act did not contemplate the giving of joint orders. And he failed to see how an order for liquor could be given without stating the quantity required. No one could give a general order for liquor. He held that there should have been stated a specific quantity of liquor for each of the persons named in the order.

Benjamin Wells, manager of the K«mont Brewery, said lie received an ordw (produced) for two four-dozen cases of liquor from Richard O'Donnell, Artlmr ODonnell, Michael O'Donnell and Richard Frankpitt, on November 27. and the order was sent out the next dav. The labels (produced) bore the address given in the order and also stated the quantity of liquor in each ease, and that the liquor was for private consumption. He received no acknowledgment of receipt of the liquor. He received a cheque for the order from E. O'Donnell. He did not remember receiving any order by telephone as to the quantities of liquor to be sent to each of the persons named in the order. He had no intention of evading the law and always did his best to keep within the provisions of the Act. Constable McGregor, Mokau, deposed to. interviewing defendants, when R O'Donnell made a statement which witness took down in writing, relating to the ordering and receiving of the Hquor. It had been agreed at R. o'Donn-j'"j suggestion to order the liquor from the K?mont Brewery only—namelv two fourdozen cases, two dozen bottles for each. The order had been sent., tigned bv R. O'Donnell and Co., and giving the names of each of the four persons concerned. lit was stated that the liquor was for private consumption only am 1 w;is to be sent into a proclaimed' area. The address to which the liquor was to be sent was given as R. O'Donnell and Co., Tongaporutu, via Waitara, care of Scott and St. George, per s.s. Tukau. Carriage was prepaid to Waitara. One case of liquor, containing 48 bottles, was received on December 25, and the second case was received, via Awakino. on December 31, and contained only 17 bottles. It was alleged that the balance of the quantity had been stolen at Awakino. He took delivery of the first.case from Frank Richards. and put it at the back door of his house. He took two dozen bottles for his father and himself. He left the balance in the case. On Christmas evening, Frankpitt and Arthur O'Donnell, his ion, 18 years old, come and he gave the

son one dozen bottles out of the case and he put them inside the hack door of the house. He took two or three bottles away later, and left the remainder anil look them away as he wanted it. Some of his beer was still at the house on New Year's Eve. Frankpitt took his dozen bottles straight away. O'Donnoll's father and some friends consumed the two dozen bottles they had. On December 22 he received 27 bottles from Mr. H. Ellis, Urenui, for himself. Frankpitt and his son had a share of the 17 bottles received on December 31. Constable McGregor stated that O'Donnell admitted Die' statement was correct, but refuse;! to sign it. No further evidence was called. Sub-Inspector Hutton said there were some previous convictions against Richard O'Donnell, but nothing was known against, the other men. A conviction and a fine oi £1 (costs lfls) was recorded in the case against the Brewery Co. Richard O'Donnell was convicted and fined the sum of £3 (costs 7s) for storing liquor in a proclaimed area On the charges of making a joint order convictions only were recorded, the costs to be apportioned equally between the parties. The charges of making separate orders were dismissed.