THE LIQUOR LAW

Wairarapa Age, 23 March 1920, Page 3

THE LIQUOR LAW

A BREWER CHARGED. DECISION RESERVED. At tho Masterton Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, beforo Mr. S. L. P. Free, S.M., W. Burridge, brewer, of Masterton, was charged with breaches of the liquor law pertaining to a no-licenso district. It was alleged that Burridge sent liquor into the no-license district of Masterton upon an order that did not comply with the requirements of the Act. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

The point to be decided was whethor it is legal to place a standing order with the depot in Carterton for a quantity of liqnor to be delivered in Masterton from time to timo on regular dates. The police evidence showed that a man named Miller, residing at No. 4 Hope Street, placed an order some months ago. In spite of the fact that Miller had left the town some timo ago, defendant continued to send liquor every Saturday to No. 4 Hope Street. Mr. R. R. Burridge, who appeared for defendant, admitted that the order may bo a littlo vague, but it was quite bona fide, and there was no attempt at an evasion of the law. Counsel contended that the charge against defendant was so weak that there was practically no case at all. i He maintained that it was quite legal to place a standing order for liquor. As soon as defendant-was notified by the police that Miller had gono away, he stopped sending the liquor. . His Worship intimated that ho intended to reserve his decision. W. Burridge was then charged with keeping liquor for sale. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Defendant, in evidence, said that he received orders at the Carterton depot by post. The carter was in-, atructed to collect cash on delivery. If for any reason the liquor was not delivered Itwaa returned to Carterton. He 'had a good many standing orders. If customers wanted these orders cancelled they notified him. To Sergeant Miller; On February 14 the driver brought back the liquor addressod to No. 4 Hope Street, and said the man Miller waß away. Again oif the 21st the driver brought the liquor back, and said the men were Still away. The order was repeated on the 21st. Miller had never notified defendant that ho was leaving Masterton, and defendant thought he was only out of town temporarily. When the driver brought the liquor back it was returned to the depot in Carterton. Joseph Stevenson, carter for« defendant, said he had delivered liquor for Miller at No. 4 Hope Street for some montbi. As a rule Mrs. McNab paid for the liquor, but sometimes Miller paid for the liquor himself.

Witness had never been notified of Miller changing his address. On February 7, Mrs. McNab said Miller was away, and would not fce back for a day or two. Witness consequently took away the liquor, as Mrs. McNab was a teetotaler, and the liquor was only for the men. If witness had known that Miller had left permanently he would have cancelled his order. Witness had not delivered any liquor since the police told him Miller had gone. To Sergeant Miller: Witness had taken back other orders for certain reasons, and had told the storeman at the depot that the orders had been returned. # . The Magistrate reserved his decision in this case also.