The Licensing Act.
IS THE BONA FIDE TRAVELLER DEAD?
IS PLAYING CARDS FOR DRINKS ILLEGAL ?
An appeal, involving the question of the existence or non-existence of the bona fide traveller, was heard before Mr Justice Cooper m Chrintchureh on Friday. Samuel Brooking, a hotelkeeper at Sumner, appealed against the decision of Major Keddel, S.M., but admitted that on Sunday December 11th last, he sold liquor to persons residing m Christchurch, who had travelled to Sumner on the day mentioned. Mr Solomon, for the appellant, said the whole question was whether section 157 of the Act of 1881 was still m force, and if so, whether it enabled a traveller to be supplied. His Honour pointed out that section 157 was a section for procedure, to enable a licensee to escape punishment where a mistake had been made. Mr Solomon said that a section m last yaar's Act made it permissible for a licen? see to sell liquor to a bona fide traveller. Mr Stringer Baid that under the 1 81 Act no person could have obtained liquor but for section 156, which had been expressly repealed, and the bona fide tiaveller's privilege was cut down by subsection 5 of the Act of 1895, limiting him to refreshment on arrival from a journey. The Act of 1904 said practically that even the curtailed privileges of the bona fide traveller should be taken away, Hiß Honour said as the question was a very important one, and the language of the Legislature on the point was not very clear, hie would take time to consider. Argument m an appeal against the derision of a Stipendiary Magistrate that playing cards m an hotel for drinks is a breach'of section 44 of last year's Licensing Act, was also heard by Mr Justice Cooper on Friday. . The appellant, A. E. Fuller, a Hcens'g victualler at Lyttelton, admitted that on December sth last four men went to his licensed premises and played a game of euchre, the loser paying for four drinks. Mr Russell, for appellant, said it had been a custom of the country for fifty years past that men could legally play cards on the understanding that the loser should pay for drinks for the players. H6 further contended that gambling was altogether different from gaming. Gambling as understood m the English language, meant a transaction where the results involved were of magnitude. 1 Mr Stringer said Mr Eussell's test m regard to whether a man was gambling or not was unworkable and impracticable. The Oourt would have to make an exhaustive enquiry into a man's private means to ascertain whether the stakes were for him unduly high. He submitted that the intention, of the Legislature was to prevent the playing of games for money or moneys worth m licensed houses, and it was not a question of the amount of the '• stake at all. He quoted an English case m which an $ppe*l against the conviction of a licensee for allowing four persons to play ten pins for a pint of beer a game was dismissed and the decision of the Justioes was uphold. He also stated that according 1 to Webster's Dictionary the terms • gaming' and f gambling' were practically synonymous. His Honour took time to consider. _ The Licensed Victuallers' Association instigated both, appeals.
Permanent link to this item
The Licensing Act., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6570, 15 May 1905
The Licensing Act. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXII, Issue 6570, 15 May 1905
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.