COLONIAL WINE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10075, 22 June 1910, Page 5

COLONIAL WINE.

SALE IN NO-LICSNSE DISTRICT ILLEGAL-

THE MASTERTON APPEAL CASE. CROWN'S APPEAL UPHELD. An important question under the Licensing Act, 1908, was decided in a judgment ghen by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, in the Supreme Court yesterday, in the c; se of Nathaniel Miller, police sergeant, v. William George Lamb, of ESasterton, an appeal made by the Crown against a Magistrate's cecis ion. The point at issue was whether New Zealand wine may be sold in No-license districts. Various phases of the case were argued at length last week, Mr Jl W. Salmord, Soli-citor-General,—and Mr H. U. Ostler appearing for [appellant, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C , "and Mr F. Keliy for respondent.

The statute affected was a Consolidation Act, and bia Honour painted out that the court had to deal with it as it now stood, and was not concerned to review previous legislation. "How then stands the Licensing Act, 1908?" he asksd. "It is called a licensing, Act, but it does not deal with all the law relating to the licensing of persons to sell intuxicatirjg liquet. "The Licensing Act started in section 3 with defining its scope. It said shortly, 'except as expressly so provided iu this Act nothing in, this Act" shall apply'—(a) to the selling of spirituous or distilled perfume; (b) to '- any apothecary, or chemist, or druggist administering or selling any spji'ituous, distilled, or ferment', d liquors for medicinal purposes, ami (c) (and this is the subsection that has to be.jdenlt with in this appeal) 'to any person selling wine, cider, or perry in quantities of not less than two gallons at any one time, the produce of grapes, apples, pears, or other fruita respectively grown in New Zealand, and not to be consumed on the premises," etc , etc. His Honour dealt at length with tha construction to be plsqed on the words "except" as expressly provided in this-Act". "Suppose clause 3 and sections 146 and 147 were iu two separate statutes both, affi mative, the one declaring that New Zealand wins • (juict.be sold, and the . other afterwards declaring tha«; in certain districts no wine could be sold, it is 1 think clear that the special Act dealing with a particular place would over-iule the general enactment. Now, sections 146 and 147 were meant to do something more than provide for the non-iasue of licenses. If that .only was their object, their enactment was unnecessary for section 24, subsection (c) made ample provision for the non-isaue of licenses.. . . If we note the whole

tramework of the statute, we must see that the special -express provisions in section 146 are to deal with persons other than those usually licensed to sell liquor, and if so these would he the nersons exempted in clause 3. If no., we would have this anomaly that auctioneers 'could sell liquor by auction in a nolicense district,- while hotelkeepers could not, and all the elaborate provisions as to sending liquor intn a nolicense district would be of no avail. "Take for example the question of the brewer. Their Hdense is under a' different statute, and therb is no provision as in,.section 3 that those licenses are to be held subject to any provision that may]be found in the Licensing ®Act, as is the case with people sailing New Zealand wine, yet the Legislature thought it necessary to insert subsection (f) Why? The answer must be because if that clauae had not been inserltd tbey, though under- a different statute, wbuld have been barred from selling even to non-residents. The enacting of the two provisions regarding brewerß and chemists are proof that the Legislature 4 assumed that the provisions of section:. 146 and 147 were express provisions in the meaning of section 3.

Referring to the provisions contained in the Legislature Act, 1908, subsection (e) of section 271, his Honour said.they showed that it was the intention of the Legislature that a No-license district should be placed in a different position from other distiicts. There were also sections in the Licensing Act which, in his opinion; expressly provided for a state of things at variance with the privileges given to certain persons in section 3,

In his opinion, there was ample evidence that this privilege to wins sellers was not to exist in a No license district, and neither wine-sellers rior auctioneers could sell alcoholic liquors in a Nn-licenae district. "A wineseller," he remarked, 4< is cot a person who must apply for a license, for section 3 exempts, him from the need of being licensed. I may add that if it were Decessary to-refer to the history of iicensing legislation the reference would not militate against the conclusions I have arrived at, but would favour them." His Honiur held that the Magistrate's was erroneous, and the appeal must be allowed, with seven guineas costs. The magistrate was directed to convict. QUESTION OF APPEAL. Mr C. P. Skerrett, who appeared for Mr Lamb, asked for leave of appeal. His Honour did not think thiere was power under the rules to appeal in such a case as this. Mr J. W. Salmond also questioned whether there was power to appeal. The matter was allowed to stand over, to give Mr Skerrett an opportunity to look into it, . _