LICENSING APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 204, 29 August 1910, Page 5

LICENSING APPEAL.

SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO A MAORI. APPEAL UPHELD. The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were continued thus morning 'before Mr. Justice Edwards, -when an appeal was made by Herbert Davis, licensee of the Kaeo Hotel, Kaeo, against a conviction for supplying liquor to a Maori, for consumption off the premises, in a district in which such supply is prohibited by the Licensing Act. The conviction was given by Mr. Horance, S.M., at Whanga-roa, in October last. Mr. A. Hanna appeared fox the appellant, and Mr. Selwyn Mays for the respondent, who was named as Constable Carmody. The Magistrate's notes and copy of the evidence were put, and Mr. Hanna briefly outlined the case. The appeal ■was against a conviction recorded in one of three charges laid agajnst the appellant. The lirst was on the 27th August, 1909, which was dismissed on the grounds that it had not been proved that liquor was sold for consumption off the premises. On the second information, the appellant was charged with the same offence on the 31ot August, 1909, and upon this information he was convicted and fined £25, with costs. The third information was for a similar offence, on the 11th September, and this charge was withdrawn. There wore also three similar charges I laid against a man alleged to be in the service of the appellant, and on the tliird , information, on 11th September, he was j convicted and fined £5. Mr. Hanna subI mitted that the proper ruling of the Act j was that the person actually supplying ! the .liquar should be proved. The only evidence for the prosecution on this point , had been the native to whom the; liquor J was supposed to have been supplied, and there was not on e tittle of other evidence. There was corroborative evidence by others of seeing the native carry the liquor away, but the conviction had been on this native's evidence alone. He submitted that if it was proved that the evidence of this native was unreliable, under no circumsances was the Magistrate justified in convicting the a.pp=llant. In the hearing of the first charge against the appellant, which was dismissed, the native had stated that the appellant refused to supply him with bottles of liquor. In the case which succeeded the only corroborative evidence was that two native women s aw the native ride past the hotel with a sack in which there appeared to be bottles. There wa-s considerable discrepancy in the evidence given by the native women and the native at the ! trial. The appellant had denied absolutely that he ever supplied the native ! "with boitle3 of liquor, and the man who was fined £5 also denied ever naving supplied the native with bottles. There were other planes, it was contended where liquor could have been procured. In concluding, Mr. Hanna again sub mitted that a conviction must be based on proof of a personal act, and the person making the supply was the only one liable. Even the fact that the owner of the premises was conversant or not did not" cast any obligation upon him, as the section of the Act said "every, person, whether licensed or not." There had been considerable i discrepancy in the evidence of the chief I witness for the prosecution, and Mr. ■ Hanna submitted that any evidence given .by Mm should not -be greatly relied on. Mr. Mays contended that the conviction I did not rest entirely on the native's evidence, but on several outstanding facts. : They had no evidence other than the I native's that the liquor was supplied by ! the appellant. There was no other ! licensed house within a distance of eiplu ! miles. Mr. Mays further outlined tho evidence at the hearing of the case. Mr. Justice Edwards, on the facts submitted, did not see how the conviction could stand. The conviction had evidently been on probability acainst the absolute evidence of other pi-oplc, and to l< 1 ; the conviction stand would mean that ha had to find perjury against three r people. He might have doubts against J the veracity of people, but lie would not feel justified on 'this in saying they had committed perjury. He was quite certain that if the offence had been indicta.ble no jixdge or jury would have con- ; vieted the appellant on the evidence sub-' mitted. The appeal was accordingly up-1 held. Mr. Mays applied that the appellant should bear costs for the action, and his Honor reserved this question.