THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 15, 18 January 1905, Page 3

THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

MAJOR KENDALL'S JUDGMENT.

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

CHRISTCHURCH, this day.

Recently a publican occupying a licensed house at the marine borough of Sumner was* charged at the Christchurch Magistrate's Court with supplying liquor to a person representing himself to be a bona fide traveller. In giving judgment yesterday (Tuesday) the magistrate (Major Kendall, S.M.) said: "I cannot arrive at the same conclusions as counsel for the defence as to the effect of the amendment of the licensing laws of the past session. I am aware that other gentlemen in the profession, solicitors of standing, having expressed similar views, and also that some decisions have been given in the same direction. The question is one of public importance, and I am pleased to learn that in this case the Supreme Court will be invoked to give an authoritative ruling on the point. The law may be shortly stated as follows: The Act of 1881 (sections 156-7) contains a definition of a bona fide traveUer. Under section 156 the bona fide traveller could be supplied. Section 22 of the 1895 Act restricted this supply, and thereafter the bona fide traveller could only be supplied 'on arriving from a journey.' The part of these two sections referring to travellers is repealed by an Act of, 1904 (section 38), and from that date a traveller could not demand or receive any drink whatever. This is, In my opinion, an unequivocal repeal of the permission to supply in subsection 5, section 22, 1895, and its repeal does not replace the traveller in his position as to supply of liquor he enjoys. For the passing of the 1895 Act, in fact, does not leave the law in the same position, as when the Act of 1895 was passed the authority to supply the traveller before 1895 was given by section 156-8, which was entirely repealed by the Act of 1893. Section 157 of the Act of 1881 was a clause to relieve the innkeeper, who, on false representation of a person travelling, and which representation, after taking all reasonable precautions to ascertain the fact the innkeeper believed, and supplied liquor to, and satisfied the justices that he truly believed In the statements. In my opinion this section, which still remains on the Statute, is now a nullity. The closing paragraph in the section is of use, for it defines the bona fide traveller who, found on licensed premises at any time when such premises are required by the Licensing Acts to be closed, can satisfy the Court that he comes within that definition. I am of opinion that under the law as it now stands a traveller cannot demand or be supplied with liquor during the time at which licensed premises are directed to be closed; and the defendant must be convicted, and I order him to pay a penalty, which at the suggestion of the Crown Prosecutor I make merely nominal, as the case has been brought for the purpose of setting at rest the true interpretation of the law on the subject. Defendant is fined £1 and costs." In reply to counsel for the defendant, the magistrate said the conviction did not carry an endorsement. Counsel for the defendant announced his intention of carrying the case to the Supreme Court.