UNKNOWN

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10229, 4 May 1911, Page 6

UNKNOWN

INSUFFICIENT ADDRESSES.

A SMALL FINE IMPOSED

In the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., Samuel Keedwell was charged with having .sold liquor, in compliance with an order received from Albert Hayes, resident in the No-license district of Masterton, and failing to furnish the Clerk of the Court with Hayes' name and address. A similar charge was preferred in respect of A. E. Franks. In a third complaint he was charged with that, knowing liquor was being supplied to A. Hayes, a resident of the No-license district, he delivered such liquor to the aforesaid resident in contravention of section 147 of the Licensing Act, 1908. Mr H. C. L. Robinson appeared for the defendant, and entered a plea of "not guilty" in each case. Sergeant Miller, who prosecuted, stated that the charges were laid under section 147 of the Licensing Act, 1908, clause B. The evidence would show that the defendant supplied liquor to Albert' Hayes, and had given the address to the Clerk of the Court as "Mr A. Hayes, Masterton."

Mr Robinson claimed that no offence had been disclosed in the information. There was no onus cast upon the defendant to ascertain the full name and address of a purchaser of liquor. Sergeant Miller cited the opinion of Mr Justice Williams, given in an appeal case heard on February 11th last. In the present case it was suspected that the liquor was being brought in to Masterton for sale. Enquiries failed to identify "Mr A. Hayes, Masterton."

Sergeant Miller, on oath, deposed that an order for liquor had been lodged with the Clerk of the Court on March sth last. Witness had examined the order, and was at a loss to know who '"Mr A. Hayes" was. The matter was referred to the Constable at Greytown, and he replied that the liquor had been supplied to "Albert Hayes." Constable Brown had made enquiries, and had failed to trace Hayes until after a charge had been heard against one Jones. It was then discovered that Hayes was Iving in a boarding house. An information was laid against him, and he had since disappeared. In answer to Mr Robinson, Sergeant Miller admitted that the W.F.C.A., as wholesale agents, had been in the habit of supplying quantities of liquor to residents of Masterton. He had frequently made inquiries, through, the Greytown constable, for the supply of the full nam© and address of persons to whom liquor was addressed. He had not complained direct to the defendant of to the office in Masterton that parcels of liquor supplied to Masterton had been insufficiently addressed. Constable Brown deposed that on March 10th he had made inquiries as to the address of "A. Hayes, Masterton." He failed to trace sucfy an individual until March 24th, when he found that Hayes had been laving at the Carlton boarding house; The man disappeared before an information could be laid against him. Mr Robinson admitted' that the man Hayes had been living at the Carlton boarding house in Masterton

from February 4th to March sth. Constable. liarkin, inspector of licensed premises at Greytown, deposed that on or about March 7th ho went to the Greytown' premises of tho< W.F.C.A., and saw the order given by Hayes. The name 1 and address of the person to vrhom the liquor was to be sent was "A. Hayes, MasterUm." Witness asked Mr Keedwell if ho could say where Hayes was to be found, and Mr Keedwell said he could not. The liquor was taken, away iin a motor oar driven by Jones. Witness,had previously made I inquiries from Keedwell as to the ( addresses of the persons to whom liquor was. supplied/ and had impressed upon him that it was necessary to supply the full addresses to the ClerkVof the Cqurt, Bo that the police might trace the person 'to whom the liquor was supplied. Under examination by Mr Robinson, witness admitted that he had seen the liquor placed in Jones' car, and had telephoned to Sergeant Miller that the liquor was on the road to Masterton, He suspected that the car belonged to a "dropper," but he did not convey his suspicions to Keedwell. Witness had found Keedwell always willing to supply information asked- for. Keedwell had asked witness what information Seri geant Miller wanted; and witness had said>tha,t what 'was required was an address sufficient to enable the liquor ■ tct be traced. Keedwell had said that he did not want the "drop-

pers" trade. By Sergeant Miller: Witness had been told by Keedweli that liquor had been sold to persons with whom he was not acquainted. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr 'Robinson suggested to the Sergeant that he should allow these informations to be dismissed. The W.F.C.A. was willing to give an undertaking that whatever information, or address was required would be supplied in future. There had been no intention to conceal anything or defy the Act. Sergeant Miller stated that the defendant had the name "Albert Hayes" in his possession, but had merely supplied the address "A. Hayes." His Worship said he did not think the case was one in which a penalty should be imposed. I twas true that the address given might have been more explicit. The question, however, was whether a reasonable address had been given. His WorsHip thought that sufficient publicity would be given by drawing the attention of the firm to the matter. A j conviction would be entered, and the defendant would be discharged. As the two other charges were of a similar character, His Worship proposed to enter a conviction without a fine in each case. Sergeant Miller pointed out that, under the Act, there was a provision for a fine of £SO for a second offence. As defendant had just been convicted, he could not be dealt with leniently on a second charge. Mr 'Robinson askect'that, under the Justices of the Peace Act, and to prevent an appeal, the case in regard to Franks be dismissed as trivial. His Worship stated that he did not think the case one which should be regarded as a second offence in which the maximum fine should be inflicted. The minimum fine was notstated. A fine of 20s would be imposed, with costs 19s,