APPEAL DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 44, 15 November 1941, Page 4

APPEAL DISMISSED

Liquor Near Dance An appeal agaiust the decision of Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M.. who convicted a man who bad been to a dance in St. Francis Hall on July 2G of having liquor in his possession in the vicinity of the ball, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court. Appellant had been found in a right-of-way near Parliament House, and Mr. F. W. Oligley, who appeared for him. said the point at issue was the meaning of sub-section 3 of section 59 of the Statutes Amendment Act, 1939. He submitted that the section aimed at sobriety in dance halls, not the consumption of liquor. The sub-section containing the words “attendipg or proceeding to attend a dance,” and it was submitted that "that could not apply to people who had left a dance. ' Mr. Ongley said that if a man was fifty miles away and was proceeding, to a dance and had liquor in his possession he was still liable under the section. The legislation was aimed at people taking liquor to a dance, and one must exclude in some way a person leaving a dance. The appellant had been to a dance and had left it. There must be a reasonable interpretation of “attending,” said Mf. W. R. Birks, who appeared for the Crown. The appellant admitted that he had paid admission for the dance, and there was sufficient evidence for the magistrate to find that he was still attending the dance. The ordinary accepted meaning of "vicinity” or “confines” was the urea near a dance-hall. In the absence of a reasonable explanation by' the appellant there was evidence to support a conviction. Mr. Ongley said that if a man were within, ten yards of a hall, going away from it, he was not liable under the section. The appeal must fail, for two reasons, said his Honour. The magistrate was entitled to infer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the appellant was attending the dance. The appellant, had been to the dance and was found with liquor close by the hall, where the dance was still in progress. When a man had paid admission for a dance, joined in the dancing, aud bad gone out while the dance was in progress and was found with liquor in his possession, he was still attending the dance within the meaning of the section, notwithstanding the fact that he might have decided, after a policeman accosted binjj or might have formed a previous intention not to enter the hall again. Any other interpretation would largely frustrate 'the intention of the Legislature.