ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9623, 16 October 1909, Page 5

ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

FIRST INFORMATION DIS-

MISSED,

At the Magistrate's Court, yesterday morning, before Mr R. H. Turton, S.M., Kate Neilson was charged with keeping liquor for sale and with selling it in the Masterton No license district between September 13th and 19th. Mr Pownall. who appeared for accused, objected to the charge of keeping liquor for sale, on the ground that the charge between the dates specified was too indefinite. His Worship said he would take the other charge first. Sergt. Miller stated accused commenced getting liquor about the beginning of August and up to about the 20th she had some twenty gallons of beer to her own account. She denied that fell this liquor was obtained by her, stating there were others of the same name in the town. The brewer, however, stated that there was no other person of that name in the town getting liquor. Accused then changed her tactics and said the liquor was for boarders.

Patrick Boland, a boarder at Mrs Neilson's, gave evidence as to ordering beer and whiskey through Mrs Neilson. He did this for the sake of convenience, and refunded her the money on receipt of liquor. George King, another boarder, deposed having asked his landlady to ordei beer for him, for which he paid on its arrival. By Mr Pownall: Mrs Neilson did not make any money _out of the transactions, The liquor'was ordered in witness' r.ame.

William Burridge, brewer, at Masterton, stated he had a depot at Carterton. He received orders for beer for delivery in the No-license area of Ma?terton. He sent jars of beer to her on various occasions, and instructed his driver not to deliver same unless it was paid fcr. Harry Harding stated that he was employed by Mr Burridge to cart and deliver liquor. He had delivered various lots at Mrs Neilsun's boarding r house Samuel Keedwell, manager, W.F.C.A., Greytown, produced orders for liquor stnt to accused's house. Constable Townsend stated that on the 6tb iust. be went to Mrs Neilson's boarJing-house in company with Sergt. Miller. The latter questioned her about liqu r sie had ordered for King, BolandJ an! another. She admitted ordering it, an I said she would r.ot give it to them u .less they paid her the money. She also ordered liqucr from Greytuwn for Boland, which she said she had" paid ior by cheque. Witness assisted to execute the s»arch warrant last Thursday.

Sergt. Miller corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and contended that according to the Act the liquor became Mrs Neilson's property, as soon aa she took delivery of it, and that the fact of her getting paid for it [again consti tuted a sale.

William Gillespie, Returning Officer for the Masterton Eke o: ate, was called to give evidence as to the declaration of the poll.

by Mr Pownall: r A petition was lodged for a re-count s bsequent t) the publication in the Gazette. This was done, and an amended notice of the poll was given accordingly. The number of votes all round were then slightly reduced in favour of Nolicense. He did publish any atnendsd result of the poll after the recount, as the Magistrate countermanded an order to do s .

■Mr Pownall contend :i that the Act was quite clear on tie point that a person could act for a buyer and not for a vendor. He held, too, that there was abstlu'ely no proof of sale, and su' mitted that this was not a Nu-license district.

he charge was dismissed,

A HEAVxT FINE.

The Court then dealt with the second information, that of keepin? liquor for sale. Patrick 3oland said in regard to the liquor Mrs Neilson had obtained for him he was quite satisfied that she made no profit out of the transaction.

George King said he had no liquor but his own at the boardinghouse. Mrs Neilson did not sell the boarder's liquor.

William Burridge, brewer, stated that on August 14th he supplied accused with two gallons, August 17th four gallons, and on August 39th four gallons, August 24th four gallons, August 26th six gallons. On September 14tb, he sold also two gallons of beer. By Mr] Pownall: There were no orders from the boarders during August. After the hoarders started sending in orders Mrs Neilson only received eight gallons in September and seven gallons in October.

Sergt. Miller stated that on October 14th he executed a search warrant in the accused's house. Mrs Neilson refused to tell him where the liquor was, but subsequently showed him some in a box. Continuing, the search outside he found three empty beer jars and a kee an! another jar were found in another sleeping room in the yard.

By Mr Piwnall: Hn lad no doubt that plenty of had mora than one yir and three Lo ties of whisky n ih.ir possession.

Mr Pownall safd the charge was one of keeping liquor for sale. Provision was made on the Statute that where an unusual quantity of liquor was found on the premises of a person within a No license district it was necessary for that person to rebut the charge. If the police had found an unusual quantity of liquor on the premises there would have been a case to answer. Sergeant Miller, however, admitted that the quantity was not an unusual one, and counsel contended there could therefore be no case to answer.

Kate Neilson, boardinghousekeeper, deposed having ordered the liquor for her boarders as a matter of convenience, and for which they always paid her. Sometimes she gave them beer with their meals, but had never kept any for sale. By Sergt. Miller: They paid the same rate for board now that they had paid previously, and she had not at anytime received any compensation for the beer she had ordered. By Mr Pownall: Her old boarders were not inclined to come to a Nolicense area without some inducement.

George King, recalled by Mr Pownall, said he had bot seen any liquor kept for sale or sold on Mrs Neilson's premises. This concluded the evidence.

His Worship stated that in the first; charge the police were not able to prove an actual sale. He was absolutely satisfied in this case, however, that the defence, to put it mildly,, was untruthful, The law on the question was well known, because'whefr the licenses disappeared people took good care to find out how fliey stood; Accused would be convicted and fined. £35, with costs amounting to £3. 13s. '