BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9562, 7 August 1909, Page 5

BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

THREE YOUNG MEN DEFENDANTS. EACH FINED £5 AND COSTS. Arthur Woodbam, Edward Broadbeiit and Frank Deering Pelling, were charged before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M , at Masterton, yesterday morning with having sent liquor to themselves without having a statement on the outside of the package

showing that it contained liquor. Woodbam was also charged with obtaining liquor for a no-license area without notifying the vendor and also with bringing liquor into a no-license area without giving a written statement of his name and address.

Sergeant Miller asted for the police, who prosecuted, Mr 0 A. Pow nail appearing for the three defendants and pleaded not guilty to the charges. It was decided to hear thj joint charges first. George Mason Harden, licensee of the Club Hotel, Carterton, said he only faintly knew Woodham", of the three defendants. Ha believed it was Woodham and the ftther defendants who called at his hotel on the 2nd inst. and purchased a case of' whisky, for which all three helped to pay J Constable Townsend said that at; ten minutes to twelve on Monday night he intercepted the defendants in a gig, driving into Masterton. The vehicle contained a case of whisky,, twelve bottles, one bottle of gin, while Woodham had a flask of brandy in his pocket. Broadbent saii his name was "Jones," but Woodham said, "give your right name." Woodham said the liquor was ordjred on Saturday night, but declined to say who ordered it. Woodham whs a married man and a householder, but Polling wag living at the late Empire Hotel premises, where he used to work. Constable Anderson gave corroborative evidence. This closed the ca=e for th 3 prosecution. Mr Pownall said that appar ntly some offence had been committed, but the case was of great importance to this district, and if a conviction was to be made it should be made under the right section. Section 146 was, counsel submitted, the high]

penal section, and was directed at gross breaches by merchants agents in the district or by vendors out- | side. But counsel contended that a breach of section 147 only had been committed-™ the taking into the district of a larger amount of lljquor than was legal, arid not notifying the vendor. The information had counsel submitted therefore been laid under the wrong section, and by no stretch of construction could it bo alleeed that defendants had "sent" liquor to themselves. There was no proof to show where the actual destination of the liquor was. and how could the charge therefore be one of sending to anyone.

The Magistrate said he would reserve his decision on that point. , The charge against Woodham of failing to notify the vendor that the liquor was to ba taken into a no-licenso district was then taken. Mr Pownall entered a plea of not guilty to these, and accepted the evidence as given. Counsel said it was merely a question of construction of the Statute.

Mr Pownall said lie intended to submit that there was a defect in the Act of 1908 through which figuratively a coach and horses could be driven, and it was such as not to

prevent a person from bringing as much liquor into the district as he chose without committing a breach. Sub-clause E of sub-section 1 of section 147 read to the effect that every person who being a resident in a no-ilcense district who obtains or order liauor to be delivered into such district was liable to the penalty specified. Counsel contended that this sub-clause should have read "intended to be taken," to make it conform with sub-clause 1, which requires that*certain necessary formalities are to be gone through. Further, sub-clausa (f) did not, counsel said, prevent a person fron* taking any quantity be chose into, the district. To constitute a breach under the section the delivery should have taken place in this dstrict, whereas it was actually delivered in Carterton, and once delivered there, there could be no further deliveries.. The Magistrate said he was against Mr Pownall's contention on Uis point.

After soma discussion it was decided, Mr -Pownall agVceln*. to include the other two defendants under this charge, in order that if a conviction were entered, it might be against the three, to minimine the cost of appeal, if such a course were taken. Both defendants also pleaded not guilty. Mr Pownall here submitted that through the Act being defective the whole of the informations would have to be dismissed. He pointed out that to make defendants liable a breach of sub-clause (e) would have to be proved, as tne was not intended to apply to the sub-clauses following it, and if a conviction were made under [such following subclauses there was no penalty pro-* vided.

The Magistrate said that as no penalty was provided for the offences contained in the informations he believed he would have to dismiss these cases. The penal clause was in the raidale of the section, and therefore the offence was not properly provided for. He would, however, give the point further consideration, as he would have to go more deeply matter before taking such an important step as seemed inevitable through what was probably a printer's errcr. The cases were adjourned till 2.15 p.m. On resuming, Mr Graham said he had gone carefully into the point raised as to whether the penal 'subclause (e) sub-section 1 of section 147 was intended to apply to the whole section, and he had come to the conclusion that it was, and therefore a conviction must be entered. Each defendant Would be fined £5, with 9s costs. Mr Pownall asked His Worship to fix the amount of security in the event of appeal, the Magistrate making this i'lo. With respect to the other informations, Mr Pownall asked that they be dismissed without prejudice, and though Sergeant Miller asked that instead they be adjourned sine die, the Bench acquiesced in Mr Pownall 's request. The other cases were therefore dismissed without prejudice.

The liquor was ordered to be returned, the Magistrate stating that there was no evidence to show it was; to be illegally used.