SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO MAORIS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9182, 5 April 1910, Page 5

SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO MAORIS.

INTERESTING CASE AT COURT

DECIDED WEAKNESS IN THE LAW.

An important case, of interest not only to all who come within the scope of the Licensing Act, but to all who have the interests of the native race at heart, was heard yesterday afternoon, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., at the local Court, when the police prosecuted George Brown, of Shannon, for a breach of section 270 of the Licensing Act, 1908, in that he supplied liquor to Maoris for consumption in the prohibited district of Raukawa. The section invoked provides that every person (whether licensed or not) is liable to a fine not exceeding £50, who supplies liquor to any Maori for consumption off the premises. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan conducted the case for the police, and Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for defendant. The facts of the case, as stated by Constable Esson, were that on March 10 he was going along the Foxton-Shannon road when he noticed defendant Brown coming out of a hotel with a sack bulging suspiciously. Further along the road were three Maoris with a dray. After some manoeuvring Brown hid the sack in a raupo s\vamp, and after looking carefully up and down the road to see if the constable wa6 in sight the Maoris went into the swamp and secured the sack. The constable went after them on his bicycle, and found in their dray a demijohn ofi liquor, which they were endeavouring to conceal. They said they were taking it to Putty's mill, where none tut JVlaoris worked. Brown, ques tioncd by the constable, said the liquor was for his own use, and he had merely got the Maoris to carry it for him. For the defence, Mr Cooper quoted the case of Fitzpatrick v. Gibbs, recently, decided in Palmcrston by Mr Justice Chapman, and asked whether he had any case to answer. The Sub-Inspector, in reply, admitted that if the Magistrate considered the effect of that decision and the decision in the case of Bowdcn v. Rhodes was that it was not unlawful to serve Maori men with liquor anywhere except on premises licensed or unlicensed, or to introduce it to the kaianga, then the case for the prosecution must fail. He admitted the facts were on all fours w 7 ith the case quoted by Mr Cooper, but contended that the case of Fitzpatrick v. Gibbs might' not have meant more than that liquor might be unlawfully supplied in premises licensed or unlicensed to native men, and that it might not have extended to the delivery of liquor in practicallv unlimited quantities to Maoris in any other places. The Sub-Inspector sta'ted that it was perfectly reasonable to suppose that under the Act a, native could drink liquor in a hotel or in a friend's house, but the intention of the Legislature was to prevent- it being supplied for consumption elsewhere. Under the ruling of the cases quoted a man would be committing a breach if he gave a bottle of whisky to a Maori who was in his house, but would be free to give him the bottle if they were out on the road. The Sub-Inspector asked for his Worship's explicit ruling on the points raised. Ilis Worship, after carefully considc:ing the decisions referred to, arrived at the conclusion that their effect was. that it was * not unlawful to supply liquor to Maori men elsewhere than on. premises— in other words it was only unlawful to supply liquor to Maoris on premises, licensed or unlicensed, to bo consumed off those premise";. Tho case was therefore dismissed.