SALE OF WHISKY.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19667, 10 July 1929, Page 15

SALE OF WHISKY.

INTERPRETATION OF LAW.

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT.

(PBE33 ASSOCIATES TEL2&BAM-)

WELLINGTON, July 9. The Full Court, consisting of Justice Myers, Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Adams. Mr Justice eJmitto, was engaged to-day in bearing the appeal ot Charles Petersen, P°l«» ol J: oer, of Dunedin, from the decision ot Mr Orr Walker, S.AI-, an information laid by him a Arthur Albert Paape. licensee or tne Grand Hotel, Dunedin, on «J an 31st, 1929, charging P aape that, bein„ the holder of a publican's license for the Grand Hotel, Dunedin he did sen liquor at a place not authorised oy the license. ... , It was alleged bv the police that defendant had employed a commercial t-aveller named Smith to travel round obtaining orders for liquor, tomitn called on one Breen. at Timaru, ana obtained from him an order ior certain liquor on the terms of delivery on receipt of cash. The liquor was forwarded by carriers to Breen. ~ The Magistrate held that the evidence was insufficient to establish » complete sale away from the hotel, and dismissed the charge Mr A. E Crnrie appeared for the informant and Mr W. Perry for defendant. Mr Currie said the appeal was taken on the ground that despite the acceptance of the contract which in law took place at the hotel, there was a sale within the popular meaning of the word, at Timaru, constituted by the actual delivery and payment there, and it was this sale which amounted to a breach of the Lie p ns'n<r Act's word. The word "Sa'e" in Licensing Act must be interpreted in the popular sense or the word. He submitted that the purported appropriation of goods to the contract at the hotel in Dunedin could not be such as to establish the complete sale, and that the actual appropriation completing the sale, did not take place until the goods were delivered at Timaru"This substantial part of the completion of the contract occurring at Timaru amounts to a breach of the Act." said Mr Currie. Mr Perry, for the defendant, submitted that if the essential elements of the sale take place on licensed premises even though the goods are delivered off them, then no offence was committed. He contended that all the essential elements in this case took place at the hotel, and. further, that there was actual appropriation when the liquor was selected and cased, and that then the property in the goods passed to the buver. The decision was reserved.