LIQUOR AT BALLSTUDENT FINED

Grey River Argus, 3 August 1949, Page 2

LIQUOR AT BALLSTUDENT FINED

WELLINGTON, August 2. Holding that, two unopened bottles of liquor bearing the brafid of a well-known make of pale ale must be considered to contain ale, Mr J. S. Hanna,'•S.M.. entered a conviction in a reserved judgment in respect of a prosecution against a student for having liquor in his possession at the University Capping Ball in May last. The defendant was John Edwin Horner. The case for the police, which was heard on July 1, was conducted by Sub-Inspector McKie. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £2. The defence was that the bottles which the police stated had been seized from the defendant at the ball had not been proved to contain intoxicating liquor. Counsel for the defendant had submitted that the definition “intoxicating liquor” as given in the Licensing Act, required that all alleged liquor had to be analysed before it could definitely be held to be intoxicating liquor. The definition of intoxicating liquor as given in the Act was “any spirits, wine, ale, beer, porter, cider, sherry or other fomented, distilled or spirituous liquor which on analysis is found to contain more than three parts per centum of proof spirit”. Counsel had submitted that the analysis provision applied to all liquids mentioned in the definition. He said that certain Magistrates had upheld this submission. Mr Hanna said the decison given by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in Auckland was to the opposite effect; namely, that the necessity to analyse the contents of the bottles applied only to liquors referred to by the words “or other fermented, distilled, or spirituous liquor”. Spirits, wine, ale, beer, porter, cider and sherry did not have to be analysed to prove that they were intoxicating liquors. Mr Hanna added that the liquid found in the defendant’s possession at the ball had been labelled ale, and it was only consistent with common knowledge and commonsense to assume that the bottle did indeed contain ale.