QUESTION OF ADDRESS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 91, 27 January 1928, Page 5

QUESTION OF ADDRESS

AN IMPORTANT RULING.

“ASHBURTON” IS NQT SUFFICIENT

LICENSING CASE DECISIONS. Reserved judgment in the licensing cases heard last week, in which Bishop and Co Ltd., of Christchurch, James of Seafield, and James Sim, of Seafield Road, were charged before Mr C. R. On- Walker, S.M., with having failed to place the name and address of the purchaser of liquor intended to be sent into Ashburton, otn the goods (in the case of Bishop and Co., Ltd.), and on the orders for liquor (in the cases of Somerville and Sim). At the hearing Mr R. Twypehain represented the firm, and submitted that “Ashburton” was sufficient address, Mr L A. Charles, for Somerville, submitting a similar argument. Sim stated that he had lived here for 20 years, and his letters had never (been addressed to any place other than “Ashburton.” i The Magistrate said he had considered the question, and he concluded that the .addresses given in the cases mentioned were not sufficient to comply with the Act. Such would not stop sly-grogging. There was nothing in the Act toi say it was the Post Office address which was required.. An address must he a reasonable address, so that the liquor could be traced. As this type of address had hitherto been accepted he would not impose a fine. Sim was ordered to pay costs 12s, and each of the others 10s.