THE LIQUOR LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10033, 21 January 1896, Page 5

THE LIQUOR LAW.

CHARGE OP SERVING A PROHIBITED PERSON.

[BY MLKOHAI'H.—•OWN CORRKSFONDKNT.] ;rvUf / •>'*?;:] l (f» .3 r.T/r'-"' 1 • - Thamks, Monday. At the Police Courb, John Morrison, licensee of t|ie Royal Hotel, was charged with serving W. J. MoKee, » prohibited person, with liquor. ' Defendant pleaded nob guilty. The Clerk' 'the' 'Court produced an affidavit 'of the service of the order at the Royal Hbtel, and sliownd that the order was not served 1 on Morrison, but on an inmate appearing to be above the age of 14 years. A son of McKee's stated that although his father had been a prohibited person since December '2nd, he Afterwards gob drunk on December 2f)th. He followed his father down to Grahamstown, saw him enter the Royal Hotel, and saw him in there drinking. \Vitness went in and asked the licensee if ho knew he was serving a prohibited person and the reply was in the negative. He informed the police. Mcßee, the prohibited man, said he wenb to the hotel and had a glass of beer. He wont to the Royal Hotel because he thought Morrison would not know him. When his boy oame in and told the licensee what he was doing, the latter snatched the glass of beer away. Mr. Miller, who appeared for the defendant, raised two points, namely, want of knowledge of the prohibited person, and that the service of the order was not in accordance with the Act. Ho argued sections dealing with tho matter of sorvice, and contended that if the service could be made on any inmate of the hotel, it would be necessary that the licensee, the • barman, the 1 barmaid, and every inmate should have to go and personally know every person against whom an order was issued. He showed the absurdity of expecting the licensee and his servants to go miles "to know" such persons. The Act was quoted to show that service should be personally effected on the licenseo. John Morrison denied all knowledge of MoKee as a prohibited person. His Worship decided that the service was not in accordance with tho Act, and dismissed the case. W. J. MoKee was then charged undor last year's Act with procuring drink while being a prohibited person, - He was lined £2, with fsj costs.