THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10060, 6 August 1910, Page 6

THE LICENSING ACT.

AN ALLEGED BREACH. William Redmond, licensee of the Club Hotal at Carterton, was charged in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., with a breach of Clause B of Section 147 of the Licensing Act, 1908, in failing to furnish the Clerk of the Court at Masterton with the name and address of a person to whom liquor was supplied. Mr Lavery anpeared for the dej fendant, who pleaded r.ot guilty. ! Constable Dunn stated that on' July 14th he was in the Club Hotel, Carterton, instituting certain inquiries. The licensee of the hotel (Mr Redmond) told witness that two men had called that day and had taken away a case o£ whisky each in a motor-car. Witness called somß days afterwards and enquired who one of them was. Redmond said He did not know him, but described him as a tall, dark man, with a black moustache, W tness enquired about Masterton, but could find no man of th° name answering the description given. Under cross-examination witness stated that Redmond had informed bim of the sale of whisky a few minutes after it took place. Redmond said each of th 3 two parties had taken a c?.se of whisky and had gone to Maiterton. Constable Ingram evidence of Constable Dunn concerning the visit to Mr Redmond's hotel. Ernest J. Eastwood, motor proprietor, deposed that he had driven three men to'Carterton on July 14th. Two c;i£.e3 were brought to Masterton m the motor-car. Sergeant Miller maintained that the address of one of the iiu,., which was given as "Masterton," was insufficient. Webster's Dictionary defined an "address" as a place of residence. Mr Lavery—Masterton is a place of residence. Mr Reid, S.M., stated that it would all depend whether there was a sufficient address to enable the PDhce to trace the person procuring the liquor. Mr Lavery contended that the address "Masterton" had been accepted by the police in the past ao sufficient, and he could not nndtr*u>id why a distinction shnuld be iw.u in this case. The defendant had acted bona fide. The defendant, on oath, deposed that he had supplied a case of whisky to a man who signed his name as "T. Boyle," and gave the address of Masterton. Witness had seen the man in Masterton that morning. He was a small shopkeeper in Perry street. Sergeant Miller—ls he in Court? Defendant—Yes, he's here. A man named Frank Boyle here stepped forward and stated "I'm the man." He admitted that he was the person who had received the whisky. Sergeant Miller—Wiry didn't you tell " Mr Lavery—"iou don't expect him to chase you with evidence. . Sergeant Miller claimed that the address given was still insufficient. The defendant could have ascertained in what street the man Boyle lived. His Worship stated that, on the evidence, the publican was exonerated. He had not given a fictitious name, and the man to whom the whisky was supplied had put in an appearance It was not a case in which an attempt was made to mislead the police. The information would be dismissed.