LIQUOR IN PROCLAIMED AREA

Hawera Star, Volume L, 16 February 1931, Page 8

LIQUOR IN PROCLAIMED AREA

' IMPORT.) NT -II DEMENT CIVETS.' »J udgiuonli was rca-d : in t-Ji.o Upuuake jCoui'L un JL< i-klay l>\ Air K. \i . Tate, •S.M., in tin: case til tile ixj-licti versus Mapara, Mo-skin, Jas. Miuhinniek,. Alfred H. West -and the I-lawera Brewery Company, Ltd., began m that court- in November Just, when Air. lu •M. Leecliey, of Hawera, apiieared- lor defeud tints. Each defendant was charged with the supply of liquor to Hoy Matahaero for consumption oil' the promises. The ease against the Brewery Company was dismissed but tines were in--11 ioted on the. other defendants. his Worship first reviewed the facts of the . case. Hu said that Hepara Hoskin, James Minhinniek and Alfred 11. West and Hawera Brewery Company were changed with breaches ol the Licensing Act, 1910, by which it is enacted that every person (whether licensed or not) who, in any proclaimed district supplied liquor to any native shall be liable ■ to a tine not exceeding £6O. ; His'Worship retailed, the facts which showed how a Maori Matahaere asked I Hoskin to get beer and pay for it. The latter got Minhinniek to get it from West, an employee of the brewery. Minhinniek doing the business and paying the cash, with instructions, to send it to Hoskin of the Patiki Road. Delivery was effected to Hoskin. The In Lter gave the beer to Alat-a-haeve. who is -a Maori, wbflle Minhinniek is a hajf-casto and one to whom beer may not he supplied. Hoskin was, lie said, more white than Maori and was not .prohibited. 'His Worship said that Minhiuniok. anti West wore guilty of breaches of the Statute. The circumstances, said His Worship, led to the inference that Minhinniek knew all about the transaction, Hos-

kin remaining in tin; background while tin; business wiij, being done and that AJ in hi tmick knew where the beer was going. He was convicted of aiding and aliening Hoskin in the offence. The iniurination was amended accordingly. It was argued in the case of West ami the company that there was lie supply,, but. there was evidence of supply by West to Minhinniek and West should have known that Minhiii-' nick was not safe to deal with, it was argued also- that, although Minhinniek. was the instrument of purchase, there was no evidence of supply as he never had possession but His Worship.- considered this too narrow ail interpretation for the word •‘•supply”' which ■should- be given its ordinary and natural meaning.

In cases quoted b.v- His - Worship there were decisions that “su'ppUy”- was held equivalent to “deliver” and in each of these there was delivery to persons not the purchasers. Minhinniek directed delivery at the Patiki Road to Hoskin and by this delivery, according to his directions, the supply to Alinhiimiol> was complete, and in another sense, said his Worship, there was also a supply to Hoskin and there-was nothing incongruous in the doub'ie application of the word. His Worship stressed the fact that the true intent, meaning and spirit of the Act was “to prohibit delivery in proclaimed areas of liquor to Maoris for consumption off the- premises.” His Honour. Justice Cooper, said also that “in my opinion it is intended to prevent, in the district so defined, a Maori having possession of liquor and therefore to prohibit the delivery of honor to a Maori.” ‘Tf a. sale to Minhinniek. of beer with delivery to Ho-skin by his direction,” said His AVorship, “is not a supply within the meaning! of the Statute, then an easv avenue is opened to defeat the intention of the Statute by delivery to fictitious and unscrupulous white men at the direction of persons themselves prohibited.”

He par a Hoskin was convicted of the supply to Matahaere and was fined

C 7 10s (costs 10s). Minhinniek was convicted of -aiding uuid abetting Hoskin and was fined £lO (costs £1 3s), A. H. West was convicted of supply to .Minhinniek and was fined £lO (Cl. (is). The information against the HaweraBrewery Company was dismissed. Mr. Beechey. for the defence asked His Worship to fix security to appeal.. His Worship said counsel should either state a case or file a notice for re-hear-ing.