LICENSING LAWS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 120, 14 February 1920, Page 7

LICENSING LAWS

BREACHES AT MASTERTON

WELLINGTON FIRMS FINED (From Our Correspondent.) Masterton, February 13. Some time ago the police lislted the Masterton. Gentlemen's. Club and' found there liquor stored in lockers. The sequel of Ihe visit was three prosecutions heard before Mr. S. Ij. P. Free, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court to-day. Harold W. Brown and Co., i.td., of Wellington; were charged with having in' October, 1919, sent liquor into the nolicensc district of Masterton to (no N. Broad, "except on and n pursuance of the terms of an order swd by and stating the address uiul '.u'oiipa'ion of purchaser thereof." Brown and Co. were arraigned on a further charge that "in selling liquor to one N. Broad,, in , compliance with an order for the said I liquor intended, to bo sent into the noliceiise district of Masterton.. they failed ! to furn-'sh to the Clerk of the Court at Masterton a statement in writing of the. ■nature and quantity of the liquor so sent, and of the name and address of', .the person ordering tho same, and of the person to it was sent or by vil'fin it: .was taken." ... >ft n r hearing evidence, the Magistrate said lie'was quite satisfied that in both ) th-se cases there had been no intentional breach of the statute. .Owing to a. mistake by. a.junior clerk a technical breach had been committed, but it was nothing more. ' -The law laid down that a man must cive his name, address, and occupation, sn that the police may be enabled to trace the liquor. A, technical breach had ■ been committed, and a conviction would lie entered. On one charge Brown and Co. would be convicted and fined 40s. and costs. On the other charge defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay costs. .CARE;AGAINST. JOHNSTON AND CO. Johnston and Co., Ltd., of Welling-, ton. were charged with having in October. 11)19. son t liquor into tho no-license district of Masterton to one Guy Williams "except ori'and in pursuance of the terms of- an order 6igned by and stating the address of the purchaser thereof." At the-conclusion of the hearing His Worship said this appeared to be moro ; serious than, the last case, as the' liquor • Was sent, into the no-license district with-' out any order at all. He looked upon this case as being, in quito a different class. . The law laid down that no limtor must b9 taken into a no-license district, except upon a written order. In this case no written order at all had been iriven. Defendants would be con-, victed Wl fined ~10 and costs.