LICENSING LAWS QUESTIONED

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22104, 28 May 1937, Page 6

LICENSING LAWS QUESTIONED

TEST CASE POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CHALLENGED The soundness of a decision in a Supreme Court case, Waterson v. Low, in Christchurch, in 1926, was questioned by Mr F. D. Sargent, who appeared for six defendants charged with breaches of the licensing laws, in a case before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Mr Sargent indicated that he would be prepared, if necessary, to lest the decision before the Full Court. The charges arose through the alleged unlawful supply of liquor on May 8 by Lillian McKenzie, wife of the licensee of Tattersall's Hotel. A charge against James Mcßeth McKenzie, the licensee (of selling liquor after hours), and charges against others (of being on licensed premises without lawful excuse) were.dismissed. The Court reserved its decision on the charge against Mrs McKenzie. The case for the police was conducted by Senior-Sergeant D. L. Calwell. Giving evidence, Constable John Southworth said that on May 8, in the evening; he entered the hotel. Two men were with Mrs McKenzie. She said they were the guests of her son, Colin. Two women she claimed to be her own guests. She stated that she had supplied liquor as a gift, and the men admitted that they had received it as such. On being questioned, Mrs McKenzie had stated that her son was not in the hotel at the time. Cross-examined by Mr Sargent, Constable Southworth said that the men had been sitting in the lounge quite openly, but, when he entered, the women had left the room. Mr Sargent: Quite naturally. One of them had never been in a hotel before. They evidently got a fright. It is quite understandable that they would be scared at the sight of & constable.

After further evidence had been heard, Mr Sargent submitted that jf the defendants were regarded as bona fide guests the charges should be dismissed. Whether Mrs McKenzie supplied liquor or not was immaterial if the purpose of the visit was lawful. In that case there could be no question of the sale of liquor. Senior-Sergeant Calwell said that this had not been shown on the evidence. Stating that he would be prepared to test the decision of the case, Waterson v. Low, by which a licensee's wife was not allowed to give liquor to her guests, Mr Sargent said: "There are a lot of absurdities in the licensing laws. I think it should be made known to the public that, if this precedent is accepted as good law, the wife of the licensee of a hotel is unable to shout a drink to even her own son and daughter, if they are not bona fide guests. I very much regret that because of this precedent a woman of Mrs McKenzie's reputation has to appear in Court. I feel that the case should be argued before the Full Court." After consultation with the defendant, he agreed to withdraw her previous plea, changing it to a plea of not guilty. The Magistrate: The question is, am I bound by this decision to enter a conviction? "It seems to me quite illogical," he added, in referring to the effect of the decision. "I do not like it." If he dismissed the charge, he said, it would throw the onus on the Crown to bring an appeal on the Waterson v. Low case; but if he were bound by the decision and entered a conviction, Mrs McKenzie could decide whether she wished to have the decision tested before the Full Court.