FULL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 October 1929, Page 5

FULL COURT

LICENSING ACT APPEAL

THE ARGUMENT.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, October I

/ In the Full Court case, Smith v. Hickson, 'Mr C. It. Fell for the appellant, said that the informations were laid under Section 190 of the Licensing Act. He submitted that there were three separate and distinct offences, and that the respondent could be convicted on each information, though all arose out of the same set of facts. He further argued that it was not open to the respondent to raise the defence of a previous conviction, as he was charged with three distinct offences. Jt was purely a coincidence that the evidence of the ►same witness went the length of establishing throe offences. He contended that, in this case, there were threo wrongful acts, and not merely three informations arising out of one wrongful act. The provisions of toe Crimes Act relating to previous convictions were of no avail to the respondent, ns the informations in question were for summary offences. Mr Perry, for the respondent, said that.each must stand on its own facts. In the case then before the Court, the evidence called in support of the charges of opening and exposing was sufficient to establish an illegal sale, and the respondent, having 'been convicted of the major offences, should not be convicted on the other .charges. The conviction on the major charges acted as a bar to convictions on the lesser charges. “If the appellants’ contention was correct,” said Mr Perry, “it is possible that a publican could be convicted for seven or eight offences out of one set of facts—such as selling liquor to a youth after hours. This (Woulld have disastrous results, stich as clearly were far beyond the intention of the legislature. J udgment was reserved.