RECEIVING ORDERS FOR LIQUOR,

Evening Star, Issue 12899, 23 August 1906, Page 3

RECEIVING ORDERS FOR LIQUOR,

IN A NO-LICENSE AREA. AUCKLAND, August 23. A prosecution, the first of its kind in Auckland, laid under section 23 ; subsection 1, of the Alcohol and Liquor Sales Control Act of 1905, was brought against commercial travellers at the Police Court. The section provides that orders for liquor shall not be received or solicited within a Nolicense area. The district in which liquor ■was supplied was Grey. .Mr Lynn said that defendant was charged with having received a a order for beer and stout from a resident of Kingsland. Mr M'Veagh pleaded guilty on behalf of the defendant. It was a fact that defendant did receive an order for stout and beer. He had gone to the house to epl r lect an account due "to him. He had. not solicited, and had said lie could not ask for an order. He was given a 6igned order.

Mr Kettle said that he would accept.the statement of defendant that the order was received in ignorance. At the same time, ignorance did not make a complete excuse. Brewers and their travellers should know the law. The Legislature had seen fit to fix a £SO maximum penalty for a- first offence, and for a second a maximum penalty of thres months' imprisonment, which showed a strong determination to have the Act observed. Taking into consideration that it was a first prosecution in AuckJaad* ajine of £5 be

inflicted. In future cases, however, the fine would..be heavier.

An incident of the previousi case was that the husband of the woman who ordered the beer fnrn defendant was a. prohibited person; and in consequence proceedings were taken against' her on tha grounds that she procured liquor for her husband and supplied him with liquor. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr S. Mays, who conducted the prosecu-, tion, did not call evidence, but said that the defendant had allowed four dozen pints of Kquor to pass through the hands of her husband. There was nothing to prevent him from taking and. drinking any of the liquor. It was the settled law that to incite under similar circumstances meant to tempt, and on this interpretation of tie word a conviction had been recorded in the case Police v. Hogg. Mr Potter submitted that there was nothing for him to answer, and emphasised that the magistrate had already mentioned as to whether the fact of one member of a family being prohibited debarred other members of the house .from having beer in the home. . . The Magistrate reserved his decision.