SELLING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 157, 4 July 1888, Page 5

SELLING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY.

JUDGMENT IN NORTHCOTE CASE.

At the Police Court this morning His Worship, Mr H. C. Baddeley, R.M., gave judgment in the cases prelerred against Mr James -Fraser, licensee of the Northcote Hotel. He was charged with having sold liquor on Sunday, the~lofch of June, to one Alexander Campbell, and also with supplying liquor on the same date to one James Hurley, who was not a bonafide traveller. Inspector Broham appeared for the police and Mr Baume for the defendant. His Worship gave judgment as follows: —These are cases brought under the 155 th clause of the Licensing Act, 1881, and are for selling liquor and for allowing liquor co be sold during pi escribed hours—to wit, on Sunday the 10th of June. It has been stated that these prosecutions have be pn compassed by certain unworthy means on the part of someone wishing to injure the defendant, but I cannot allow that to have anything to do with the matter. All I have to consider is—Are the breaches of the Act charged proved ? If the defendant believed there were persons bent on injuring him, he should have been doubly cautious. I will first deal with Campbell's case. He lives within a quarter of a mile of the hotel, and on Sunday, the 10th, in tho afternoon, he obtained a bottle of beer at the bar of the hotel, from the hands of the landlord, saying, at the samo time, " I am not going to pay for it," to which the landlord replied, "All right." In reply to myself, Campbell acknowledged that if this transaction had taken place on Monday, instead of Sunday, he would not havo asked for his dinner beer as a gift. Now, it must be remembered that Campbell is only a very occasional customer at the hotel, and the proprietor said he thought his request a strange one, and would certainly have expocted to have been paid for the liquor if it had been obtained on any day but Sunday. As a matter of fact, we.md the liquor was paid for afterwards, and it was only reasonable that this should be so. Nevertheless, I consider a very lame excuse was given by Campbell for this "after thought," as he termed it. The fact of the payment, however, goesfar to weaken the effect of the evidence that it was a bona tide gift. I quite agree with the defendant that Mr Campbell's request of a gift of beer was a strange one, taking into considoiation his Dosition, and that the publican gets his living by selling liquor. If the proprietor was not informed that the money was paid, I am sorry for it, but he should take care to leave persons of sufficient age in tho bar, who will tell him what moneys they receive on past transactions ; and it is negligence on his part if he does not. A boy of eleven summers should nob be allowed to go near a bar, much less serve in it. 1 am clearly of opinion that a transaction in the nature of a sale took place on this occasion. With regard to what I will call Mcllhone's case, tho wifo of the proprietor served a person who was evidently a bona fide traveller, and after hearing this traveller invite ono Hurley to join him in a drink, drew beer for both. I read the clause of the Act to mean that the liquor to be supplied to a bona, fide traveller ia for hia own eowv'mprion. That seems the commonsense reading of the clause. If it were not so, a traveller could have the whole neighbourhood into an hotel on a Sunday and treat them for as long as he liked. The case quoted by counsel Pine v. Barnes, 20 LawKep., Q. 8., 221, is not at all on all fours with this caso; in fact, it does not touch it. The case of travellers is entirely distinct from that of lodgers. A lodger's rooms are for the nonce his house, and he can, of course, entertain his friends there. This is not that case. The case of Newman v. Jones, 18 Law Reports, Q.8.D., 132, turns entirely on the question of bomjule*. It really hardly seems necessary to go into the question of bonajides in the face of the fact that the person who served* the liquor is the defendant's wife, and it was doubtless negligence on hia part if he allowed her to servo in the bar without knowing fully his (the defendant's) responsibilities. Cockburn, C.J., said in Boseley v. Davies, Law Reports 1, Q.8.D., 84, a man is .aid to suffer a thing to be done if it is done through his negligence, and to put the most favourable construction on the matter, the defendant was negligent in not giving his wife as complete instructions as he should have done. Judging from her actions he did not give her very full instructions. She knew when sh._ drew the drinks that one was for Hurley ; she knew she could not legally serve Hurley ; then why should she think that the traveller could do so? It would only be countenancing an evasion of the law to say that a publican could serve at his bar a person not a traveller through the medium of a traveller. Fraser has been defended with ability and great earnestness, bub these are not matters to be 'trifled with. Sunday trading is far too prevalent in the colony, and it is difficult of detection, and particularly so in the out districts, and if the Act is not to be read as I suggest, it is simply waste paper. In view of the good character of the defendant, and the fact that if I fine in each case I must also, it would seem, make two endorsements, I shall only record a conviction in one. The fine will be 40s and costs, and the license must be endorsed. ~_.'_. , . His Worship said that he would merely dismiss the second case with a caution, as he did not wish to be compelled to endorse the license.