A THAMES LIQUOR CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12239, 7 April 1903, Page 6

A THAMES LIQUOR CASE.

REHEARING GRANTED. [BY TELEGRAPH.OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Thames, Monday. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. R. S. Bush, S.M., application was made by Adolphua Montgomery, licensee of the Karangahake Hotel, for the rehearing of two charges preferred against him by the police on March 18 last, when he was fined 20a and ordered to pay the costs on each charge of having sold liquor at the Parawai racecourse without having first obtained a conditional license authorising such sales. In to-day's proceedings Sergeant Hendry appeared on behalf of the police and Mr. Thos. Cotter appeared on behalf of Mr. Montgomery. In opening the proceedings, Mr. Cotter explained at length the reasons for applying for a rehearing of the charges. He pointed out that when the charges were first heard the serious effect such convictions would have upon Mr. Montgomery's license was not taken into consideration, for if those convictions were maintained it simply meant that Mr. Montgomery would forfeit his license. He (Mr. Cotter) therefore urged the Court to deal with the ease under-section 87 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, and to grant a rehearing. . In support of-> his argument the learned counsel submitted that the mere fact of sales having been made at more than one counter did . not justify a double , conviction being recorded, and in support of this contention he quoted cases analogous to the case under consideration, where it had been held that there should not be a conviction for a. sale to every particular person, but that the series of sales showed but one offence, and but one conviction only should have been recorded. Mr. Cotter further pointed out that in similar oases where similar convictions were recorded the magistrate agreed to a rehearing, as it was recognised that an injustice was being done. While he submitter that the true facts of the case were not presented to the magistrate, he did not mean that the police evidence would be controverted as to the sale of the liquor, but the fact that Mr. Montgomery had instructed his solicitor to attend to the matter, and that here was where the trouble arose, forinstead of procuring the license the solicitor's clerk to whom the matter had been delegated had secured the certificate authorising the issue of the conditional license only and posted it (the certificate) to Mr. Montgomery, and the latter had been under the impression that it was the' license itself. Sergeant Hendry stated that he was willing that only one conviction should stand, and that the other should be dismissed. The defendant, however, should have known the law, and after he had been warned by the police should have stopped selling the liquor instead, of continuing with the selling of the same, as he had done after having received the warning. After further argument the Bench stated that a rehearing of the charges would be granted, for there could be no doubt but that one of the convictions could be quashed, and that at the previous healing the defence had not pointed out to him the serious results that a conviction would mean. Mr. Cotter then admitted the facts as stated by Sergeant Hendry, and requested the Bench not to inflict a conviction. He put Mr. Moresby in the box, who detailed the circumstances under which the certificate authorising the issue of a conditional license had been issued and the mistake which had been made in forwarding that instead of the" license tt Mi. Montgomery. ■. 9 - 1 In giving judgment, His Worship said that he was not satisfied that the defendant was entitled to the full relief asked for, because if he had taken the trouble to read either the letter sent him by his solicitors or the heading in capitals on the certificate he must have seen that the document was.not a license. Had the matter been laid before the Court on the previous occasion as it had been done that day a second conviction would not have been, recorded, r He (Mr. Bush) should therefore dismiss the second charge, but should record a conviction -on. the first charge against the ; defendant without; a fine, and order' him to pay the costs of the rehearing. ".• The costs amounted to £9 os lOd.