LIQUOR WITHOUT LICENSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18949, 21 February 1925, Page 10

LIQUOR WITHOUT LICENSE.

CHARGE AGAINST OPTICIAN. COURT IMPOSES FINE OF £SO. A fine of £6O for selling liquor without a license was imposed on Thomas 11. W. ('allingham, an optician (Mr. Teddy), in the Police Court yesterday. The case arose from a transaction at the premises of "Devonshire Bros., wine merchants and commission agents," "Warwick Buildings. Evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that the room occupied by "Devonshire Bros." was engaged by another man in the presence of defendant and was entered in defendant's name. Ihev were granted permission to use, the basement, where several cases of liquor were subsequently stored. Early in December a clerk, H. Chapman, went to the room and ordered liquor to the value of £2 15s from defendant. The order included some "Key Brand Cider." A carrier stated he obtained the liquor at the room and delivered it to the purchaser. For the defence, Mr. Terry submitted that at the time of this transaction defendant was merely an agent. He had been induced to enter into a partnership with another man as "Devonshire Bros., wholesale wine merchants and commission agents." However, the partnership was dissolved and in December he was employed as an agent by "Devonshire 8r05.," obtaining orders and transmitting them, and receiving wages and commission. Counsel submitted there was no case against Callingham. In evidence, defendant said be -was an optician at "Whakatane. About last August he arranged to go into partnership with another man as outlined by counsel. In November a dissolution was arranged and he was subsequently employed by his former partner on salary. The other man had taken the office and defendant did not. know it was in his name. He travelled round the country getting orders and sent them to the office. They were sent on from there to firms for fulfilment. He knew nothing of the deliveries and was not concerned with them. In December defendant arranged to leave the employment. To his knowledge no orders were executed from the office. The liquor in the basement was only for samples. After referring to the question of the partnership and the dissolution, the magistrate, Mr. J. W. Povnton, said it was a question of .-fact and not of law. Neither "Devonshire Bros." nor defendant had a license to sell liquor. The evidence showed that defendant had taken an order and it had been supplied from the room by him. The magistrate had no doubt this was a case of sly-grog. On the application of "Mr. Terry, security for appeal was fixed at £2O in'addition to the amount of the fine.