SOLD ON SATURDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1927, Page 14

SOLD ON SATURDAY.

! DELIVERED ON SUNDAY. ! LICENSEE AND SALE OF BEER. TWO CHARGES DISMISSED. The licensee of the Robert Burns Hotel. Albert William Mclvor, for whom Mr. R. McVeagh appeared, was charged at the Police Court yesterday afternoon with keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours and with having sold liquor to Daniel McKeown. .Mr. W. 1-1. McKean, S.M., was on the bench. Senior Sergeant Edwards conducted the prosecution. Constable A. Moore, stationed at Freeman's Bay, stated that on Sunday morn, ing, January 8, he went to a house in Union Street and took up a position at a back window. He could see the rear of the hotel. At 10.30 a.m. he observed the licensee look over the back fence and speak to two men on the other side. McKeown was one of the two men. Mclvor returned to the hotel and, several minutes later, came out again and handed a stone gallon jar and two bottles over the fence to McKeown. Witness then went to the fence and looked over but could not see anyone. He concluded that the stone jar and bottles had been taken to McKeown's house, which was situated next door to the hotel. On going to McKeown's house, witness found the jar and two bottles of beer. The jar was under a table, while McKeown later produced the bottles from a bedroom. Witness saw no money pass over the fence. He did not see the jar or bottles being handed over to the licensee by either of the men. He had been watching the hotel since 8 a.m. First, when interviewed, Mclvor denied handing any liquor over the fence, but later he said that the beer belonged to McKeown, who purchased it the previous day. McKeown was so drunk that defendant would not allow him to take it away from the hotel when he called for it at 5 p.m. the previous day.

A saddler, named Charles Lloyd, of 51, L'nion Street, corroborated the constable's evidence.

Mr. McVeagh stated that the facts of the defence were quite simple. McKeown was the next door neighbour of defendant. On Saturday, January 8. he called at the Robert Burns Hotel about 1 p.m., and paid 6/ for a gallon jar of beer and two "riggers." He stated that be was going to town and would call for them later. When he did call, about 5 p.m., he was so drunk that both the licensee and his barman refused to allow him to take the liquor off the premises. The liquor was placed to one side. The ,jar and bottles had been filled on Saturday afternoon. The following morning. McTvor was in garden, when McKeown came to the fence and asked h'm for his beer. Defendant went inside and returned with it. As the constable stated, it was handed to McKeown. . The beer had certainly been delivered on Sunday, but it had been purchased on the previous day. A most important point established by the prosecution was that no money was paid over to defendant.

Defendant and the barman gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement.

Mr. McVeagh added that Mclvor had been 18 months in the hotel, while he bad been in the trade for the past five years. He had never been involved in trouble of any kind before. Counsel said that it was clear and distinct appropriation of hper in the nurchaserV own vessels. Mr. McYeagh then spent some time in referring to well-known cases bearing on this and other points In dismissing both informations. Mr McKean said that he could not convict in view of the authorities quoted by Mr. McVeagh. Mere delivery on the following day did not constitute a sale. It was extremely regrettable that the law was defined in that way, and he thought that there was urgent need for an amendment of the Licensing Act. Although he did riot find his evidence very convincing, there was nothinT to suggest that the defendant had been telling untruths.