LICENSING CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 293, 8 November 1934, Page 4

LICENSING CASE

APPEALS AGAINST MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

Three appeals (taken together) against decisions of Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., given in the Feilding Court on August 23, 1934, occupied the attention of His Honour Mr Justice Blair, in tlie Supreme Court at Palmerston Noith yesterday. The cases were brought by Police-Sergeant Angland, of Feilding, while respondents were Albert Edward Hosken, Roy Gordon Hosken, and John David Farmer, all of Feilding. The original charge against each of the three was that he did, on July 14, 1934, aid David Prideau Barnett in the commission of an offence in that Barnett, being the holder of a publican’s license, for the Manchester Hotel, at a time when the premises were required to he closed did sell liquor oil the premises. Mr 11. R Cooper appeared for appellant and Mr P. E. Baldwin for respondents.

In setting out the proceedings of one case which was identical with the others, and the reasons for his judgment, the Magistrate said the defendant in the case did not appear and, after hearing the informant and the evidence adduced by him, he dismissed the information on August 23. Defendant, had been charged with aiding the commission of an offence by tlie licensee of the Manchester Hotel, namely, the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. The defendant had admitted to tlio police having been on licensed premises after hours and having procured liquor. He, however, was not found on licensed premises by the police, and, on the authority of the decision of Moran v. Jones, could not be charged, will a breach of section 194 of the Licensing Act, the Magistrate held. Defendant was not warned when he made the admission that lie was not to be charged with the offence. Tew as not present in the Court, nor represented by counsel, and it was extremely doubtful if he understood the offence with which he was charged or tho penalty on a conviction.

“I refused to ■ convict on Various grounds and dismissed the charge,” the Magistrate added. “Firstly I considered that the Licensing Act, 1908, and its amendments was a special Act containing a code of licensing offences and the Legislature had not intended to make it an offence to purchase liquor after hours, except in breach of section 194 of the Act. Secondly, that a consideration of the penalties showed that it could never have boon intended to render purchasers liable to the penal clauses of section 190. Under section 194 the maximum penalty is £2; under section 190 it is £2O. There can be no suggestion that the Legislature intended such a penalty to one purchasing a drink after hours, who was not found by the police on the premises, and that one caught on tho promises should only be liable to a £2 fine. Jf the police interpretation is correct it Would follow that the same interpretation could be placed on many other sections of the Act. Lastly, tho defendant was a purchaser and not a seller. It was in my opinion straining the wording of section 54 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, to suggest that a purchaser aided a seller to sell his goods. A seller is one who disposes of goods for a consideration and a buyer is one who purchases, paying a consideration. A buyer has nothing to do with the selling of the goods. Nowhere in the Act is tlie purchaser of liquor made liable, unless he is found on the

premises where tho liquor is being illegally disposed of.. It is the seller, whether a licensed person or not, who is penalised if a sale contravenes the provisions of the Act and the sections already cited show, in my opinion, that the Legislature never intended a purchaser to be liable to the fines or imprisonment provided for allegal sales. If the police could so charge persons who admitted being on premises and obtaining liquor after hours, section 194 would become a nullity and police supervision and inspection of hotels to a large extent unnecessary. The question for tlie Court’s consideration is whether my decision was correct in law in holding: (1) That the Legislature never intended a purchaser of liquor sold hi breach of section 190 to he liable to the same penalty as the seller; and (2) that the defendant did not aid tlie seller, within the meaning of section 54 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927.”

Mr Cooper addressed himself to the legal aspects of the case and the adjournment was taken until 10 a.m. today.