LIQUOR INQUIRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume 82, Issue 25344, 27 October 1945, Page 9

LIQUOR INQUIRY

CONDUCT OF TRADE

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS (P. A.) WELLINGTON, Friday

"Whether we call it a monopoly, vested interest or exclusive right, the facts are that the brewers, wholesalers and publicans share between them the exclusive right of manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor in the Dominion and that their numbers are rigidly fixed,'' said jVlr -I. J). Willis, counsel assisting the commission, in opening his final address before the Royal Com mission on Licensing. ''We know this was done to prevent certain evils. The problem is whether other evjls have (lowed from this particular solution. It has been suggested that they have, that is, that the State has created a monopoly, vested interest or exclusive right, and that evils have resulted because of failure to exercise any control over that monopoly." Possible Remedies

Since the method of control at present ill lorce was the creation of a restricted monopoly, said Sir Willis, a possible remedy which logically t's}l for examination first was the abandonment of the system of licensing, leaving it free to anyone who wished to do so to sell liquor. It would then he impossible for brewers to secure exclusive outlets by "ties." There would be 110 basis for substantial goodwills and competition should force prices to their true levels. The chief objection was that free competition might lead to practices resulting in an injurious increase in the total sales of intoxicating liquor. The second suggested remedy was ownership by a State or public corporation. The advantages urged were the abolition of the profit motive, the elimination of goodwills, the tightening of controls and the diversion of profits to provide social and other amenities. Two difficulties that had been suggested related to the amount of money involved i.i taking over the trade and difficulties of management. Form of Ballot Papers "As the question of State ownership has been an issue in the licensing polls for some years now, the commission may prefer to leave this issue to the people." said Mr Willis. "Hut if if does, I suggest it considers two further matters — the preparation of a clear-cut scheme for giving effect to State ownership, such a scheme to he explained to the public before next poll, so that they know precisely what they are voting for or against, and the elimination of the present somewhat undemocratic three-issues ballot paper (undemocratic because it is all in favour of the trade) and the substitution of two ballot papers, or two sections of one paper, requiring the electors to vote whether they favour continuance or prohibition, and, if continuance is carried, whether they favour continuance under private enterprise or State ownershin." Control Authority

A fourth suggested remedy was to preserve more or less tlie existing system, giving licensing committees increased powers. On this subject Mr Willis said the volume of evidence suggested that some central authority was necessary for many reasons, and it might he thought that such a body would be sufficient in itself. Licensing magistrates might be substituted for licensing committees, but a co-ordinat-ing authority was still necessary. Another suggested remedy was to establish a central board of control, using the Queensland system as a basis to effect the redistribution of licences, to supervise the conduct and management of hotels, with particular regard to accommodation, and. generally, to supervise the liquor laws. Ts seemed to be agreed that an equitable redistribution of licences was called for in the .interests of the travelling public.

BIGAMY CHARGE UNUSUAL FEATURES I ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED Unusual features in a charge of bigamy were revealed in tbe trial of Joseph Lahood, aged 38, labourer (Mr Noble), before Mr Justice Finlay yesterday. Accused was charged with having gone through a form of marriage in 1940, while he had been married at Palmerston North in 1929. The facts were unusual, said Mr V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor. After the marriage in 1929 the parties lived for a few years together and then separated, the wife obtaining a maintenance order in 1933. The last time she received any money from accused was in 1937. The wife commenced divorce proceedings later and as site could not ascertain tbe whereabouts of her husband slip inserted an advertisement in a newspaper in 15)38 notifying him of the action. Fdr some reason the proceedings were delayed until 19!2,_ when a decree was granted on her petition. On accused being interviewed by the police lie admitted marrying 111 1940 under the name of Blakelev and describing himself as a bachelor, said MiMeredith. He stated he had been shown the advertisement by a ' friend and thought he was- free to marry again. Accused, giving evidence, said he had used the false name as he feared he might be sued for maintenance. He had waited almost two years after seeing the advertisement before entering upon the second marriage. After he was arrested and learned that it was an illegal marriage he was married again. His Honor said a conviction should be entered unless the jury was satisfied that accused held a bona fide although erroneous belief that his previous marriage had been dissolved. After a retirement of 15 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. CAR THEFT CHARGE DISAGREEMENT OF JURY The trial of Leonard Frederick Perris, seaman, aged 36 (Mr G. Skelton), on a charge of having stolen a motor-car, valued at £350, tbe property of the United States Joint Purchasing Board, was concluded before Mr Justice Cornish yesterday. There was an alternative charge of receiving tbe car knowing it to have been stolen. Mr Cleal conducted the prosecution. After further evidence for the Crown had been heard, His Honor said he was going to tell the jury that they should concentrate on the receiving charge. _ Mr Skelton said that not only did accused not steal the car aifd not know it was stolen, but he paid £350 for it. Jt was represented to him as being the property of the widow of a man who had been killed overseas. Accused gave evidence that he had been carrying on a second-hand car business. He bought a car on April 15 for £395 -cash, but found it was practically worn out and he sold it for £350 three days later. The engine must have been replaced before he got it. He did not give his correct name and address because he feared the purchaser might come back at him. The stolen car was offered to him in July by a man who said it was the property of a war widow and had not been registered for two years. His Honor said the case was really a. simple one. The car had been stolen. Accused was in possession of it soon afterwards. He gave no explanation and was demonstrably lying. The jury retired at 5,35 p.m. and returned at 9.45 to report that it disagreed on both counts. A new trial was ordered.