QUESTION OF ADDRESS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 85, 20 January 1928, Page 5

QUESTION OF ADDRESS

AN INTERESTING POINT.

IS "ASHBURTON" SUFFICIENT?" MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISIONS. Several cases of wine and spirit merchants having allegedly broken the Licensing Act regulations were before the Ashburton Magistrate s Court this morning, when Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., presided. , ~ William Stapleton, licensee of the Tattersall's Hotel. Christchurch, was charged with having sent liquor into the no-license district of Ashburton without having had an order bearing the name, address and occupation of the purchaser, and with haying failed to notify the Court of his intention to send the liquor to Ashburton. Mr W. H. Woods appeared tor defendant, and pleaded guilty to the first C Senior-Sergeant H. Martin stated that a case might contain one dozen bottles or six dozen, and the Uurt could not keep an accurate record it the contents were not specified. A fine of 20s and costs 10s was imposed in the first charge, and the second charge was withdrawn. Arising out of the foregoing case, James Sim, Seafield Head, was charged with having failed to.give to the vendor of certain liquor a statement in writing of his name and address. Defendant pleaded not guilty. He said he gave his usual and it had not been disputed in the last 2U years. -, Judgment on the point was reserved. James Somerville, SeafieldJMr L A Charles), was charged with" having failed to give hie name and address when ordering liquor to be brought into the no-license area. , Mr Charles pleaded not guilty and submitted that a similar case had been heard and dismissed by Mr Mosley in Ashburton in 1922. The Act did not declare that the place of abode should be included ; it merely said the address of the person, Most people had two addresses—business and private. The Magistrate: . And perhaps a i whisky address, too! „.,.•... Mr Charles said defendant had no fixed address. His letters went to the Post Office. , ~ ■■ The Magistrate reserved his decision in this case also, saying the point was an interesting one for the future. ! Bishop and Company, Ltd.. # Christchurch, were charged with having sent liquor ' into Ashburton without having obtained an order bearing the address ; and occupation of the purchaser. Mr: Twvneham submitted that the address "" Ashburton," was sufficient address for this town. "Mr Jones, Christchurch," would obviously be insufficient, but as far as Ashburton was concerned it was good enough, especially if a man was well known. ■ ' Decision was reserved. , Maling and Company, Ltd., Christchurch (Mr 0. G. de C. Drury) were charged with having failed to notify the Court of "the nature of liquor sent to Ashburton; Counsel entered a plea of not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Martin said the statement given to the Court did not show what the contents were. / Mr Drury submitted that the Act defined liquor as any wine, spirit or beer. He thought the case rose out of misdirected zeal on the part of the pohce. It should be dismissed as trivial. The statement to the Court stated there were "two gallons of spirits." which should be a sufficient declaration. The Magistrate dismissed the information. The Ashburton Transport Company. Ltd. (Mr R. Twyneham), were charged with having conveyed liquor into Ashburton without having ah order to do SO. -ii Mr Twyneham pleaded gudty on behalf of defendants. Senior-Sergeant H. Martin said the firm was quite a reputable firm, but had been in the habit of bringing in iliquor without orders. A great deal of 'time had been spent by the police hunting up particulars. A fine of £1 and costs 3.0 s was imposed.