THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9718, 14 February 1910, Page 5

THE LICENSING ACT.

ALLEGED BREACHES. A NUMBER OF CASES. The hearing of the liquor cases adjourned from the previous-day was continued at the Magistrate's Court on Saturday morning, before Mr R. H. Turton, S;M. . NOMINAL FINES. The reserved decision was delivered in the cases against Robert Andrew and Frederick Cooper Fox, who»were each charged with giving an order for liquor intended to be sent into the no-license area of Masterton* and failing to give the person to whom the order was given a statement in writing of the name and address. His Worship stated that the cases were practically similar. No proper address had been given in either of the cases, as the word Masterton had been omitted, and the addresses w«re thus incomplete. He was satisfied that the omissions had been unintentional, and that a nominal penalty would meet the case. Each defendant would be fined 20s, without costs. A CASE ADJOURNED. Michael John Clune was charged that having given an order on account of E. Henderson for liquor intended to be sent into the no-ficense area of Masterton, he failed to give to the person to whom the order was given a statement in writing of the name and address of E. Henderson. Mr C A. Powna.U appeared for accused, and the case was adjourned for a fortnight. INFORMATION DISMISSED. A STRAIGHT-FORWARD WITNESS. The hearing of the case against William Burridge, brewer, who was charged that he did send liquor to Thomas Lee, in the no-license area of Masterton, having reasonable ground to suspect that the liquor was Inteuded to be kept for sale, was continued.

The prevoius day, Mr Pownall, who appeared for the defence, had raised an objection that therewas no specific charge, no specifi; quantity of liquor, and no specific date. His Worship stated that the point raised as an important one, and taat he would give his ruling on it next day.

When proceedings commenced on Saturday morning, the Bench held that a specific charge should be laid. Sergeant Miller then stated that he would confine the charge to four dozen of ale sent in on January 15th. In answer to a question from Mr Pownall, Sergeant Miller stated that he did not caution Burridge about supplying Lee before January 25th. At the conclusion of the case for the police, his Worship stated that the onus was on the defendant. Mr Pownall submitted that there was no case to answer, and that the onus was not on the defendant. A breach of the section had not been committed. Things were getting to a stage when a brewer was afraid to send liquor to anyone. The mere fact of supplying a man with a large quantity of liquor was no evidence that he was aware that he was selling the liquor for sale. William Burridge admitted having supplied the liquor to Lee, but stated that he had not the slightest suspicion that the liquor as intended for sale.

His Worship stated that some others had been convicted of sly-grog selling, and defendant, on being warned, had immediately ceased sending them liquor. Defendant had received no warning in regard to Lee until January 25th, whilst the date of the charge was the 15th. The onus was on the defendant to rebut the charge, and he had, on oath, absolutely denied that he knew the liquur was for sale. The question was how much credence was to be attached to his evidence. Defendant had been before him as a witness for the police on a number of occasions, and in each case had given thoroughly honest and straightforward testimony. He (Mr Turton) would accept his testimony, and would take it that he had no reasonable ground to suspect that the liquor was intended for sale. The information would be dismissed.