THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10243, 20 May 1911, Page 3

THE LICENSING ACT.

! ALLEGED BREACHES

CONVICTIONS AND DISMISSALS

In the Magistrate's Court, at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., John McConville, v young man twenty years of age, was charged with giving an order for liquor to bo taken to a No-License district, without furnishing his correct address. The accused, who was represented by' Mr Cullen, pleaded guilty. Sergeant Miller stated that the accused proceeded to Carterton in J ones' motor-car and procured liquor from Mr Halley, stating that it was for a man working at the freezing works. The address of the accused was not given correctly. Accused was arrested in Lyttelton, where he was serving a term in Lyttelton Gaol for having used obscene language. His., Worship imposed a. fine of £3, and 19s costs, in default fourteen days' imprisonment*. Harry Thompson was charged with having, on May 6th, given an order for two gallons of beer to Willie Burridge, of Carterton, without giving his cor- ! rect name and address. I Mr G. H. Cullen appeared for the aecussed, who pleaded not guilty, i Evidence was given by Sergeant Miller and Constable Bird, to the effect that the liquor was addressed to Jones' stable in Masterton, in the name of the accused. The accused had said he did not know that he was committing an offence. John Smith, driver for Mr Burridge, deposed to having delivered the, liquor at Jones' stable. The defence was that the accused was at the stable to receive the liquor, and did not think he was committing ! a wrong, as he lived next door to the j stable. j • His Worship stated that a techni- | cal offence had been committed. The | object of the Act was to enable the i police to trace tlie liquor. He did not consider it a case for a heavy penalty, j A fine of 20s and costs would be im- | posed, in default seven days' imprisonment. AN INTERESTING CASE. Frederick J. Bright, who was represented by ,Mr C. A. Pownall, was , charged on two .informations with having given orders for liquor with- ] out giving his correct name and address.

A plea of not guilty was entered. Sergeant Miller deposed that he had noticed two orders in the Court for the delivery of liquor to "F. Bright, Masterton." He did not know who F. Bright was, and he made inquiries. He discovered from Constable Grey, of Eketahuiia, that Bright was the occupier of a billiard saloon in Masterton.

Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not known the names of the members of the Masterton Licensing Bench. The billiard saloon was nearly opposite the police station, and he and his constables had visited the saloon periodically. He did not know the name of the owner of the saloon. Ho had seen .Mr Bright in the saloon, but did not know his name. He had made certain representations about the conduct of the billiard-room under the previous occupier, but had not reported upon Mr Bright's appli«ation for a license. Constable Dumphy deposed that lie had visited the billiard saloon. He knew that there had been a change, but did hot know that defendant was the occupier.

For the defence, Mr Pownall urged that each case must bo dealt with-on its merits'. In this case, the defend- ( ant kept a billiard .saloon right op- < posite the police station. He had been a. member of the Masterton Licensing Bench for twenty-five years, and over forty years in the district. He was the only "F. Bright" in the district. The defendant, on oath, deposed 'j that he was as well-known in Master- I ton as the Town Clock. He had lived I in Masterton and Eketahuna for over forty years. He was known generally as Fred. Bright. The fact that he was a billiard saloon-keeper in Master-ton-was advertised. His correspondence was addressed to him as "F. Bright," and his cheques were written out in the name of "F. Bright.'' i His Worship said the whole case had) resolved itself into one of whether the ! defendant had given an address suffi- J cient to enable the liquor to be traced. ! It seemed quite evident that the de- 1 fendant had not brought himself within' the penal clauses of the Act. The. defendant was'well-known in tho district. He had lived here for over forty years, and-the police were constantly in the habit of visiting his saloon. . There was no other "F. Bright" in the district, and the. correspondence was sent to this address. Both informations would be dismissed. ALLEGED INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. Willie Burridge, brewer, was charged with having supplied liquor to a person in a No-License area without ' 4iaving procured the correct name and j ."address of .the person to. whom it was " supplied. Mr Cullen appeared for tho defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Miller deposed that the liquor had been delivered to Edward r Riley, "Queen Street, Masterton." The police had been unable to trace Riley by this address. Under cross-examination, the Sergeant'stated that the defendant had previously £ient liquor addressed to Queen .Street, but witness had been abl(?i to trace the liquor. Evidence was given by Constables Dumphy and Ingram.

Mr Cullen stated that this was the most, grotesque prosecution ever brought by the police. His Worship said the circumstances J of this case were similar to those m ; a. oa c e previously dealt with hy the Court. There was no doubt that the defendant had acted bona fide in the matter. He had given the only address which 'was possible. The information would bo dismissed. A TECHNICAL OFFENCE. ) Walter Scott Jago, secretary of tho W.F.C.A., Ltd.. was charged on three ! informations: (1) With suffering to' be used within the No-License district of Masterton a building; for tho purpose of keeping liquor for another person; (2) with storing liquor for another person within the No-License district of Masterton ; and (3) with keeping liquor for sale within tho NoLicense district of Masterton. Mr H. C. Robinson appeared for the

defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Miller gave evidence that, St notioQ liad been filed in the Court of the delivery by the W.F.C.A. of twelve bottles of whisky to "R. U. Harden, Masterton." Witness called at the store of the defendant, and found that there was a case of whisky there addressed to Harden. The storeman showed witness the case, and stated that he had instructions to send it back to Greytown. The case of W.F.C.A., Masterton." Witness was addressed, "R. U. Harden, care saw Messrs Joseph and David Caselberg, and told them about the matter, asking who should be summoned. Mr Joseph Caselberg said, "You are making this a personal matter. Why do you expose a man's private business?" By Mr Robinson: Witness had visited Mr Harden and found him ill. He was under medical treatment. Witness was not aware that the reason the W.F.C.A. had held the liquor and were about to send it back was that the man ordering it was ill. Witness objected .to liquor being brought from Greytown in conveyances, and stored in Masterton. Harry Hp.ll, despatch clerk for tho W.F.C.A., evidence to the liffcr; ..that the liquor was brought to Masterton and delivered on the same day - <> Mr Harden. ' By Mr Robinson: Before witness ' saw the police, he had been instructed to return the liquor to Greytown. R. U. Harden gave evidence as to giving the order for the liquor, which was ultimately supplied to his lodgings at the request of his wife? For the defence, Joseph Caselbersr. manager of the, W.F.C.A., depc ■:: l that he had given instructions for tne liquor to bo held until he ascertained what was to be done with it. When it was discovered that Harden was ill, it was decided to return the liquor to Greytown. It was procured subsequently at the request of Mrs Harden, j Mr Robinson said that, apart from j the legal aspect of the case, it was nec- . essriry that in penal cases there should I l>e .the,, strongest evidence of guilt. Pie yielded to no person m his respect j for the Sergeant's intentions, but he claimed that cases were being brought to Court which should never have seen the light of day. lit the present case there was absolutely no evidence of the storage of liquor with'the intention of breaking the law. The whole . transaction was straight and aboveboard. He (Mr Robinson) thought the action of the Sergeant in this case was deserving of reprobation-..

Sergeant Miller replied that if the W.F.C.A. were permitted to store liquor as it had been dono in this case, the intention of the Legislature would be defeated. His Worship said he had no doubt that the liquor had not been kept for sale. Under the Amendment Act of last session, however, he believed that a technical offenoe had been committed in storing the liquor. The liquojr had been in Masterton from April 12th to April 28th before it was returned to Greytown. The charge of keeping liquor for sale would be dismissed, but on the charge of storing, the defendant would be fined 20s and costs 18s.

The polioe withdrew the third information.

KEEPING LIQUOR FOR SALE. Emily Haviland was chargea with a breach of the Licensing Act in, having kept liquor for sale in the N«sLicense district of Masterton.

Mr C. A. Pownall appealed for accused, who pleaded noj; guilty, and Sergeant Miller prosecuted; Mr Pownall applied for an adjournment, in order to have an opportune ity of calling a witness who could acoount for the liquor that was found in the house. .

Sergeant Miller opposed the application on the ground that the witness spoken of (the defendant's husband) had no knowledge of the happenings connected with the case.

His Worship upheld Mr Pownall's application, and granted an adjournment until June 2nd.