LIQUOR NOTICE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XII, Issue 1219, 3 June 1919, Page 4

LIQUOR NOTICE.

ARRIVES TOO LATE. HOTELKEEPER FINED. CONSCIENTIOUS LICENSEE. Reserved decision in a liquor prosecution of much importance to all 6rms Bending liquor into proclaimed areas, has been delivered by Mr E. W. Burton, S.M. Charles Anderson, hotelkeeper, Te Awamutn, was charged under Section 174 eab-ssction IB of the Licensing Act that on April 26tb he sold 19 packages of intoxicating liquor for delivery in a proclaimed area without furnishing the clerk of the Magistrate's Court, Te Kuiti, with a statement in writing of the nature and quantity of the liquor so sent, and the addresses of the persons ordering and of the persons to whom it was sent. Mr G. P. Fir-lay appeared for the defence. In his judgment, the Magistrate said that the order was received by defendant on Saturday, April 26th, and he delivered the liquor to the railway station on that day for conveyance to Te Kuiti The last mail-carrying train that day left about 2.35 p.m. The liquor wa* carried by that train and reached Te Kuiti at 4 p.m. Defendant's custom was to examine all orders at the of business at 6 p.m. each day and immediately to sign and post the required statements. Defendant posted the statement at 7 p.m. on the Satarday, and the containing envelope showed that it was not received at the Te Kuiti post office until after 4 p.m. on the Monday. Ae the courthouse closed at 4 o'clock, tbe letter was not received till tbe Tuesday morning.

The proscution, relying on Whittingham v. Loppdell, claimed that the defendant had not complied with the statute. In that ease the liquor was railed on the Saturday, bnt the notice was not posted till the Tueiday. In that cbbb, Mr Justice Williams held that the notice should be given simultaneously, or practically simultaneously, with the sale and delivery of the liquor. The notice posted on the Tuesday was clearly too late to satisfy the Statute.

In the present case, the defence could not maintain that whereas the statement by prompt, vigorous action, without 'any delay,' could be equally ascribed to the putting it in the post office box at 7 p.m., some four hours later, in consequence of which the statement did not and could not reach the clerk of the court till the Tuesday morning. He did not think the statement was posted practically simultaneously and within reasonable time since the defendant lost the only mail remaining for him on that day. If the furnishing of the statement was to be simultaneous with the sale and delivery of the liquor, beyond all question defendant committed the offence charged. If the statement was to be furnished 'immediately' or 'forthwith' taking the words 'practically simultaneously' employed by the judge as having one or other of those meanings, and they could not imply a "lesser degree of expedition, then, according to other authorities defendant still remained at fault.

'I regret exceedingly to have to come to this conclusion,' said his Worship, 'because I quite believe the bona fides of the defendant. He was perfectly frank and straight forward aboat the matter. It had been his course of business hitherto to post all the statements required together at the close of the day's business. Need I point out that io the absence of a continuing series of happy incidents the inevitable result roust be that sooner or later a statement would miss the mail by which it ought to go? I feel quite* assured that defendant conscientious-^*

ly believed that his coarse of business was in dua accordance with the law. Unfortunately, it was not. I regret that 1 cannot see my way to dismiss the charge, since to du so might lead to laxity by other licensees. But in view of defendant's good faith in placing an erroneous construction on the Statute, he is fined the nominal sum of £1 and costs.'