Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SLY GROG CASES.

(To the Editor). Sir, —I have watched with some interest the re-ent siy trmg cases. and it would appear that for quantity of liquor and the means of disposing j of it there exists considerable immunity. The law seems somewhat j puzzling. In one case at the last sitting it was urged that the defendant, being charged with a second offences for which imprisonment was j provided, had a right to trial by jury. This is not so, as the right to a jury exists only where the term of imprisonment to which defendant is liable exceeds three months, and under the Licensing Act the punishment for a second offence for keeping for sale does not exceed three months. There was, therefore, no right to a jury. Then as to Mrs Neilsen's last fine of £SO. There is absolutely no power to fine instead of imprison in the case of a second offence. I was so struck with- a local in your evening contemporary to the effect that an interesting point had been raised and acted upon, that I have given the matter some attention. The Licensing Act certainly provides imprisonment for n second conviction, but counsel said he has just found a clause in the Justices of the Peace Act, which nevertheless allowed a fine. The Magistrate agreed, but said he was somewhat taken aback and inflicted a fine of £SO. Now the clause in the Justices of the v Peace Act applies to certain offences mentioned in part 5 of that Art, and to no others. In fact, until 1903 part, b was simply a separate Act, "The Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1894." So that far from being interesting or novel it is entirely inapplicable to the Licensing Act, and has been on our Statutes for actually sixteen years! I also notice that in bis charges Sergeant Miliar was confined to a specific date, lint charges of the nature then in quention are continuing ones, and the New Zealand case of Liston v. Mathews and the English case of R v. Firth show .that charges can be laid for a period extending between two dates. Truly, the lately heard cases are bewildering.—l am, etc., LEX.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19100411.2.18.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10015, 11 April 1910, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
371

SLY GROG CASES. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10015, 11 April 1910, Page 5

SLY GROG CASES. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10015, 11 April 1910, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert