A CHRISTMAS HAMPER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20218, 1 April 1929, Page 10

A CHRISTMAS HAMPER.

ACTION AGAINST PUBLICAN. DUNEDIN SALE IN TIMARU.' INFORMATION DISMISSED. The legality of the Christmas hamper system of retailing liquor which is employed by publicans was the subject of a reserved judgment given by Mr. C. R. Orr Walkor, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Tiiparu.

The case was one in which Arthur A. Paape, licensee of the Grand Hotel, Dunedin, was charged with selling liquor at a place where he was not authorised by his licence. The information was dismissed.

The defendant, said the magistrate, was charged that, on December 21, 1928, at Timaru, being the holder of a publican's licence for premises known as the Grand Hotel, Dunedin, he did sell liquor where he was not authorised to sell, namely, at Mfessrs. A. and T. Burt's premises, Woolcombe Street, Timaru, being a breach of section 195 of the Licensing Act, 1908. The information was laid on January 31, 1929. " ,

The following facts were proved, continued Mr. Orr Walker:—A Mr. Smith, a commercial traveller whom defendant had engaged to solicit orders for liquor, called upon a Mr. Breen at the latter's business premises in Timaru on October 23, 1928, and obtained an order for certain liquor. Breen signed an order form, addressed to " The Licensee, Grand Hotel," requesting that he bo supplied with certain liquor mentioned, at the prices quoted in the order. The terms were " delivery on receipt of net cash." This order continued : " Deliver address before Christmas." Breen gave his address as care of A. and T. Burt, Timaru. Delivery in Timaru. This order was received by defendant at his licensed premises, and in due course the goods ordered were taken from the cellar at these premises and cased. The case was marked for Breen. A list was typed at the hotel and forwarded to a carrier at Timaru. This list set out the names and addresses of people (including Breen) to whom the carrier had to deliver cases, and the number on each case and the amounts the carriers had to collect from respective purchasers on delivery of the cases.

On December 10, 1928, these cases were delivered to the New Zealand Express Company from the licensed premises for consignment to Clarke, the carrier at Timaru, who, on December 21, duly delivered to Breen the numbered case containing the liquor ordered by him. Breen at the same time paid the agreed price to the carrier, who sent his cheque to defendant for Breen's and other moneys collected.

The question, proceeded Mr. Orr Walker, was whether the sale to Breen was made at Messrs. A. and T. Burt's premises or at the licensed premises. It might be that the circumstances might show that there was an executory contract of sale made at A. and T. Bull's on October 23, and upon the authority of the caso of Bryant and Eales (New Zealand Law Reports, 1916) an offence would have been committed by defendant. Mr. Finch, for the defence, however, rightly pointed out that, if this were the case, the information had been laid too late, and no conviction could be entered, as section 241 of the Licensing Act provided that all prosecutions for offences under that Act shall be commenced within three months after the date of the breach, and not later. If he had to decide the case on this question he should be inclined to hold that the evidence in this case did not support the allegation that an executory contract was made on October 23 last.

Hp thought that it went no further than showing that Smith simply received an order and submitted it for acceptance or rejection at Dunedin. The information, however, alleged that the offence was committed on December 21, in that, on that date, the liquor was delivered and paid for at Timaru. Sale at Licensed Premises. It was clear that, if the transaction which took place on October 23 amounted to a sale, the information must be dismissed as having been laid too late, but he was asked to decide that the delivery and payment at A. and T. Burt's on December 21 amounted to a sale within the meaning of «the Licensing Act. He thought, according to the authorities, that the sale took place on the licensed premises. It was there that the order was received and accepted; the goods of the description in the order were selected at the licensed premises, and were appropriated there by being placed in a case and marked for the puichasei. They were delivered from the licensed premises. to the carrier. He did not think that in the circumstances the fact that the liquor was delivered and at the same time paid for at Timaru showed a sale off the licensed premises.