Breach of the Licensing Act.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XIX, Issue 5907, 31 March 1894, Page 1

Breach of the Licensing Act.

At Palmerston on Wednesday, before Major Keddell, the proprietress of the Empire Hotel was charged with a breach of the Licensing Act. The information, says the Times, was laid under section 155. which states that any person who during the tinie at which sirjh licensed premises are .liivcrcd t>> beclosid \<y or in pursuance ot riie Aor, n> lis or exposes for sale iii such premises my liquors,' ere, shall for the first offence bo liable to a penalty not exceeding LlO and for any subsequent offence, not exceeding L2O. Dr Findlay appeared for the defendant, and Constable Hilliard prosecuted. From the evidence given it appeared that two men named Hurndell and Thompson went to tho Empire Hotel on the 11th inst., and on the representation that they were there Constable Hilliard visited the hotel and found the empty glasses on the' tabic. One of tho men resided at Goodwood and the other had been working at Mount Royal. Dr Findlay contended that sufficient reason existed to induce the defendant to serve .the witnesses with drink, the one it being understood residing at Goodwood and the other working at Mount Royal, and that they were bona fido travellers'; also that there had been no evidence to show that in the case of Thompson he had slept at Palmerston and had not travelled from Goodwood or that the law had knowingly been infringed. He also argued that in cases of this nature the manner in which tho house had been conducted should form an important element in deciding the question. He further contended that the information was bad inasmuch as that although the words of the Act had been followed it did not specify the nature of the drink the defendant was alleged to have served. The word liquors was not sufficient to enable the Magistrate to judge the nature of the alleged offence. Learned counsel cited several authorities 'in support of his contention, and quoted from Paley on convictions to show that the nature of the offence required to be stated, and that it was not competeut for an informant to arrogate to himself the functions of a judge as to what constituted an. offence. It was for him to state the nature of the alleged offence, and for the Magistrate to say in his judicial capacity whether an offence and a breach of tho law had been committed. Tn the information before the Court this had not been done. Nor was the evidence such as,to prove that the defendant had supplied drink, knowing that tho witnesses were not bona fide travellers. Tho evidonce, in fact, pointed conclusively the other way.

The Magistrate intimated that the case was of too great importance at the presenb time, after the recent licensing elections, to decide off hand. He desired to look up the authorities quoted, as, as Chairman of the Licensing Bench, assuming that a reduction of licenses was carried, it would be his duty to carry out the notification received from the Returning Officer with respect to the result of the local option poll. A convict ion in this case would be a very serious matter, as, on a reduction of licenses, it would be .one of those first considered. Owing to public interests and the importance attaching to the licensing question, and tho serious results following a «"»"viction, he should give tho fullest ancft'he'amnV^