THE LICENSING LAWS.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 133, 2 December 1904, Page 6

THE LICENSING LAWS.

CHARGE AGAINST A BREWERY COMPANY. [BY TELEGRAPH — PRESS ASSOCIATION.] TIMARU, This Day. At the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. Wray, S.M., the Timaru Brewing Company was charged with a breach of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act 1895. The information was laid under section 33, clause lc, which deals with the illegality of sending into a no-license district liquor which may <be intended ' for sale. The case arose out of the proceedings against Williams, who was fined £20 for keeping liquor for sale. About 18 gallons a week had been supplied Williams for a period of two to three months. The defence was that the company understood Williams to be a carrier, and had no reason to suppose he was getting liquor for sale. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Stringer) held that it was a careless proceeding to supply large quantities of liquor to an unknown man. It was ,the defendant company's duty to make enquiries. In giving judgment, the Magistrate said the quantity of liquor supplied was a factor in the case. Unless a brewer knew the circumstances of the man to whom the liquor was supplied the amount supplied would cause no suspicion. He t nought the defendant company had shown that it was not cognisant of the circumstances of the consignee of the liquor, and had no reasonable grounds to suppose the liquor was to be illegally sold. He therefore dismissed the case, and huped the "defendant company would make careful enquiries in the future. SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. TO THI# EDITOR. v • Sir — In last Friday's issue' you report that at a "large and exceedingly representative" meeting of drapers, clothiers, mercers, and hatters, it was decided to adhere to the new Shops Act in the matter of early' closing, pending the Magistrate's decision in the test case, also to communicate hearty approval to clause 3 to the Premier ; also that a discussion look place re the lack of interest shown by assistants in the above Act, and possibly certain privileges would be curtailed if the Act became inoperative. I should like to know, Sir, who were the members of this very large representative meeting. I have asked two or three of the principal drapers, and they know nothing whatever about it, and were simply amazed to read such news. At the same time I ■would hazard the statement that not 5 per cent, of the small shops were represented there. It saVours strongly to me of a certain clique who would, under the guise of studying and benefiting the assistants, crush arid wipe out the little trader, whose cause you, Sir, have so strongly supported. With regard to the threat thrown out at the shop assistants, I think any sensible reader will look upon that as flapdoodle, and simply a would-be lever to achieve a certain end. Any real business man does not keep an assistant to look at, and unless it pays him to retain his services no doubt they will have to part. Their interests are identical. — I am, etc., SATISFIED ASSISTANT. Wellington, 27th November, 1904.