APPEAL BY LICENSEE

Grey River Argus, 27 February 1943, Page 2

APPEAL BY LICENSEE

Conviction Quashed DELIVERY QUESTION. CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 26. The conviction of William Ewart Donnithorne for supplying liquor from licensed premises at a time when the premises were directed by the Licensing Act Emergency Regulations to be closed was quashed by Mr. Justice Northcrof t in . the Supreme Court at Christchurch yesteiday. Donnithorne appealed against his conviction . in the Magistrates In a summary of findings of I'act in the Magistrate’s Court hearing, it was stated that one Marks bought one and a half dozen bottles of beer durmg legal hours and put the beer n a cupboard till he had some means of carrying it away. Marks did not call for the beer until after midnight A porter opened the door and assisted M’arks to carry the beer to tiie door of the hotel. Marks had not removed the beer from the hotel when he was stopped in the hall by the police. In his ’judgment. his Honour said the supply of the beer had occurred in permitted hours and what, happened afterwards was nor suuplyV H s Honour said it should be* noted that the regulation under ’.vluch tJw charge wbs laid contained six prohibitions during the hours of closing: selling liquor, supplying exDOs'ng liquor for sale, openin'- or keeping open for sale, allowing liquor to" be consumed on the nremises, ayd allowing any liquor to be nemeved from the prem ses. “What occurred here, I think, was an attempt or a preparation for the sixth prohibition, that is to say, the removal of liquor from the premises.,’ mid his Honour. “I am not impressed, therefore, with the suggest'on that the prosecution should be upheld here for the offence of supplying, because (he mischief aimed at was the procuring of liquor after hours. To yield to that argument would require the straining of the language of the regulation, for it would require that I should hold that the appellant by his servant had committed the offence of supplying, when in fact, what was being done was expressly prohibited elsewhere in the same regulation. As the regulation does contain that prohibition against removal of the liquor after closing hours by the purchaser and the permitting of it by the license, I am fortified in my view that the conduct complained of here is not what was Intended by; the prohibition against supplying liquor during hours of closing.”' At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. D. W. Russell appeared for the appellant and Mr. A. W. Brown for the police. ’