LIQUOR AT THE RACES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19417, 27 August 1926, Page 15

LIQUOR AT THE RACES.

BOOTH-HOLDERS FINED. QUESTION OF A LICENCE. IRREGULARITY AT MATAMATA. * _ [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Thursday". An unusual licensing case was heard before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M.in the Matamata Magistrate's Court to-day, when William Montgomery, of Auckland, pleaded guilty to a charge of soiling liquor without a licence. His brother, Ernest Montgomery, also of Auckland, pleaded guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting William Montgomery in the unlicensed sale of liquor. Several alternative charges were withdrawn. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney, of Hamilton, prosecuted, and Mr. R. McVeagh, of Auckland, appeared for the defendants. Mr. McVeagh said the cases were of a somewhat unusual character. In March last a race meeting was held in Matamata at which a. liquor booth was permitted. The law required that the holder of the conditional licence for the booth must be the holder of a publican's licence. In this case the booth licence was granted to Mr. Morrison, licensee of a hotel at Te Puke. William Montgomery was present at the booth on the day of the races, but Ernest Montgomery was not. Morrison, who held the licence, was also in attendance and looked after tho booth. The charges were laid under section 95 of the Licensing Act. He quoted authorities to show that the Mont* gomorys' action would have been permitted in England. He admitted that the brothers paid for most of the liquor that was sold at the booth, that they paid the assistants, but did riot pay Morrison, and that the proceeds went to the Montgomery's. Defendants probably thought that by having Morrison present at the booth no breach of the law would be incurred. They might havo regularised their action by entering into a partnership arrangement with the licensee. Mr. McVeagh said no revenue had been lost, and he submitted that the breaches were of a technical character. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said Ernest Montgomery submitted a tender of £SO for the booth privileges and this tender was accepted. Morrison was instructed or induced to apply for a conditional licence for the booth, and was informed that he was required to bo present on the day of the races. William Montgomery was in charge at tho booth and received the cash. Tho case looked like one of professional sly grog-dealing. Mr. McVeagh denied that defendants were professional sly grog-dealers. They conducted their business openly, and not in the way pursued by sly grog-sellers. Defendants' only irregularity consisted of using the .name of Morrison -in selling their own liquor. The magistrate said the law was quite clear that only the holder of a publican's licence was allowed to take out an occasional or conditional licence. Defendants endeavoured to regularise their action by having the licensee present, but this did not legalise the position. No revenue was lost, and there did not seem to be any other irregularity. Each defendant was fined £3, and was ordered to pay £3 4s 2d costs and expenses.