PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7369, 22 January 1902, Page 3

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

In the S M. Court to-day, The S.M. gave judgment in the case Police v. Adams. He said it was one in which defendant, being a prohibited person, entered a licensed house during the currency of a prohibition order. He had postponed giving judgment because the question, so far as this district was concerned, was an open one, and, further, he desired to consult with Judge Kettle, so that there would be uniformity in decisions given m such cases in this judicial dietrict. He found that Mr Kettle had already ruled on the point, to the effect that although an order was issued in one district, and was made to apply only to that district, yet if during the currency of the order a prohibited person went to some other licensing district and obtained liquor he committed a breach of the law. After tracing the history of legislation on the subject, His Worship said Judge Kettle and himself had agreed that the whole question turned on the meaning of the words " during the currency of the order." It might be fairly argued that an order was only applicable to the districts which it mentioned, but, after discussion, himself and Judge Kettle had decided that, having regard to the obvious intention of the Legislature, which was to protect persons of intemperate habits against themselves, the currency of an order referred only to time, not to districts. Referring to the position of publicans in regard to orders His Worship said there was very good reason why publicans should be served with copies of the orders, but, even as the law stood, it was sometimes pretty

hard on the publicans, who although they might not know prohibited persons were technically liable, if they served them with liquor. In this case he would find the defendant guilty on both charges, but would treat" them as test cases, and inflict a fine of Is, without costs. However, now that the question had been decided in this district, he desired it to be known that after this he would deal witji similar cases with marked severity. Mr Welsh said the offence had not been done furtively, but publicly, so that the point could be tested. His Worship recognised the fact, and said it was because of the uncertainty as to the meaning of the section that he had not thought it right to inflict a heavier penalty.