THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5007, 3 July 1903, Page 3

THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE FULL COURT. Yesterday the Full Supremo Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Justices DeimUtou, Conolly, Edwards and Coopir, heard an appeal by Charles William -Hammond, licensee of the Hoathcote Arms Hotel, near Christchurch, against a decision of Richmond Bcctham, S.M., Christchurch, on the Ist April, convicting the appellant of a breach of the Licensing .let, IBBi, and imposing a fine of £5 is and costs. Tho case had been removed by consent into' tho Fulf Supremo Court "for argument. From tho facts as admitted it would appear that on Sunday, the loth March, a man named Alfred Shearwood, who lived at Sydenham, and had slept there on the previous' night, cycled to Sumner, some eight miles distant, for the pleasure of tho oiuing and to see his brother take part in a swimming race. After a delay of about twenty minutes in Sumner, during which ho had no drink. Shearwood started for Christchurch, and on arriving at tho Hoathcote Arms Hotel, feeling tired, ho got off his bicycle for rest and refreshment. Ho was met at tho hotel door by the landlord. Hammond, alongside of whom were two constables in plain clothes. Hammond knew they were constables, and they ■ told! Shearwood so .a few minutes afterwards. Hammond asked Shearwood if ho was a traveller, and Shearwood told him tho facts as stated in the presence of tho constables, after which he was served with, and paid for, a shandygaff. The hotel was more than four miles distant from either Sydenham or Sumner. Tho Magistrate, in convicting, held that Shearwood was nob “ a bona-fide traveller seeking refreshment on arriving from a journey” within the meaning of subsection 5, section 22, of tho Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Acts Amendment Act 1895.

Mr Kippenberger (Christchurch) appeared for tho appellant and Mr ■ Scrlnger., (Christchurch) for the respondent. Constable Hobson. ; Mr Kippenberger argued at considerable length against tho legality of the conviction, and contended that Shearwood was undoubtedly a hona-fido traveller, and that the appellant was thoroughly justified in supplying him. Counsel submitted that the phrase “arriving from a journey” in tho Act of 1895 should be interpreted in a com-mon-sense light, and clearly meant such a journey as was contemplated by the Act of 1881. The Chief Justice asked did not tho term “journey” mean tho journey contemplated by the traveller? ! , Mr Kippenberger held that it did hot,’ ’ Under the Act of 1881 a man was a' hoiiia-'ficle traveller after he had gone outside the three-mile limit from where ho had slept the.previous night. Mr Justice Edwards: Does it not mean that a man must bo really a traveller, and arrives at an hotel on a journey? Otherwise,' a man might travel, for instance, from Wellington to Auckland,, and not be entitled to a drink till he got there. Mr Justice Denniston referred to the case of a man leaving London by stagecoach on a long journey, and a stop being made twenty miles out for dinner. Had such a person “arrived from a 'journey”? Mr Kippenberger contended that he had, and that such a traveller would be entitled to punctuate his journey every three miles with hotel _ refreshment., .He quoted several definitions of the word 1 “ journey ” from different dictionaries, one of which described a journey as an excursion to a point of interest. Mr Justice Denniston jocularly remarked that an hotel was surely a point of interest. Mr Stringer, on the other side, argued that a stoppage at an hotel before tho completion of a journey was not “ arriving from a journey ” as contemplated by the statute. Mr Justice Denniston remarked, in tho course of further discussion, that it always puzzled him why Alagistrates should hold that a man going three miles out from home and having a drink was travelling for that purpose alone, when as a matter of fact the, man might have gone for the walk, or because the neighbourhood 1 was beautiful or for some other such reason.

Mr Justice Edwards pointed out that if Mr Stringer’s argument were to hold good, an hotelkeeper, in addition to asking where a man had slept, the night before, and that his object was not to go there for drink—which the unfortunate publican had to satisfy himself about —should also be required to ascertain where the man was going. Was not the arrival at his house where the liquor was asked for, all the publican had to satisfy himself about? If a man went on a cycle ride to Lowry Bay. and stopped at the Lower Hntt or Bellevue Gardens for refreshment, had he not “arrived from a journey” as far as the publican was concerned? Mr Stringer repiled that" in snch a case the man could call at every publiohouso after passing the threo-mile stage. Hr Justice Edwards: And why not? Why should the publican he put to the test of going beyond that? Mr Stringer: Ho is not bound to supply a traveller unless he likes. Mr Justice Edwards: There would bo quite an impossible task thrown upon the hotelkeeper. If he is to supply travellers at all, quite an impossible burden is thrown upon him. Mr Stringer: It may ho that the Legislature has amended the law so that a publican bad better not supply any person at all on Sundays.

Mr Justice Denniston: If that was its intention, Had it not better say so than lay a trap by which a publican might lose his whole living in a year ? Mr Justice ildwaids quoted tho wellknown saying from Dickens, “The law is a films." Mr Stringer proceeded that if his Honor’s view wore to hold, a man alter passing tho statutory limit could go irom hotel to hotel for the purpose of getting chink. Mr Justice Edwards retorted that an ■ intelligent publican would bo able to discover his motive. Mr Stringer: A- reasonable construction is that if a person sets out on a real journey and arrives at an hotel, ho is entitled to got refreshment. Air Justice Cooper mentioned a favourite drive twenty-seven miles 10-g he had frequently taken to tho North Shore in Auckland, which people were in tho habit of breaking at an hotel on the way for dinner. On more than ouo occasion since 1895 ho was afraid ho had had a glass of beer there on Sundays. (Laughter). Mr Stringer rejoined that his Honor would be safe from prosecution if it occurred more than six mouths ago.. Tho Chief Justice said purely they must assume that tho amendment intended by the law was as contended. If they were to strike out the words “from a journey,” then there was no need of an amending law. Mr Stringer remarked that under the Law as it existed previous to the Act of 1895, a man was entitled to get drink onco he . got outside tho three-mile limit.

Mr Justice Edwards observed that according ,to counsel’s contention the hotelkeeper not only had to inquire whore the man slept and that ho was on a journey, hut he also had to ask him about tho hotels he had passed, and he might ask, “How are yon going to satisfy mo that you did not drink at those hotels?” Mr Stringer said that unless the Act limited the right to the termination of a journey, it practically left the law as it was before. Mr Justice Edwards referred to a case already decided by Mr J ustice Denniston, in which it was laid down that a man could not ride to Sumner and have a Sunday debauchery, but ho could ride to Sumner and have a drink; and surely that was all that was wanted. If a journey meant the entire distance, it would moan going there and back, and a man could not get a drink at all, which was absurd. In {ho course of further argument, Mr Justice Edwards mentioned that an ordinary cycle ride in Wellington was around the Queen’s Drive. A great many people were in tho habit of taking their lunch at Island Bay, and probably, if they wero weak enough, they might havo a glass of beer there also. According to the contention put forward by Mr Stringer, people who did that on Sundays were. always breaking the law. If they went to Island Bay by way of Kilbirnie, with tho intention of making Island Bay the ultimate point, and conning back the same way, they were not breaking the law, but those who went around would be breaking the law. Mr Stringer retorted that, on the other band, if the place were dotted with publichouses a man could get drink at every publichouse. Hie Chief Justice observed that the object of tho law was to prevent Sunday trading—only to allow it in an exceedingly limited manner. The bar was supposed to bo shut, except for lodgers and bona-fide travellers. Tho point was—had tho words “ on a journey” and “arriving from a journey” any distinct meanings? Argument having concluded, the Court reserved judgment. On the question of costs, Mr Kippenberger mentioned that the costa had been agreed upon as £2l in case tho appeal should be disallowed. In case it succeeded he asked the Court to allow costs against the respondent. The Chief Justice replied that it was not usual to allow costs against the respondent in a case of the kind, and inquiry made from the Law Department at Home showed that it was not the practice there either. Mr Justice Edwards remarked that if such a practice wero. to be established, every prisoner who was acquitted might claim costs on tho same principle.';;’ The Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.