MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 7913, 10 June 1902, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before Major Keddell, S.M.)

1 On the civil side, Netv Zealand Loan and Mercantile Ageoicv Company, Limited, sued William Ernest Sparks, farmer, of Mount Somers, for £44 7s Bd, being money It in, goods sold and delivered, work done, commission and interest. Mr Newton appeared for the plaintiffs. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given by default for the amount of claim and £4 7s costs.

Joseph Moss sued G-. W. Henderson, Waihao Downs, for £2 5s for work done and goods supplied. There was no appearance of (he defendant, and judgment was given -by default for the amount claimed and 17s costs. Police v. Ward. His Worship gave judgment in this case, heard recently in the Court. Mr Creagh appeared for the police and Mr Grave for the defendant.

His Worship said ''tins is an information against tlie defendant, a person, in the words of the information, against whom % prohibition order has been made under section 167 of the Licensing Act, 1881, .that he did, during currency of such order, enter on tJie licensed premises known as the Glencoe Hotel at Glenavy. The facts appear bo be th'at the defendant was made the subject of an order under the above named section on the 7th day of October, 1901, and certain persons carrying on business as licensed vendors of liquors within the Oama.ru licensing district were prohibited from seLling liquor to him. That on the 3rd day of April last the defendant entered the licensed premises known as the Glencoe Hotel ait Glenavy, the said premises being situate in the licensing district of Waitaki, and ■the prohibition order as stated above was in force in the Oamaru district only. The defendant is charged wijh a breach of the provisions of the 26th section of the Alcoholic Liquors Act Amendment Act, 1895 for being a person against whom a prohibition order has been made under section •167, is found on any licensed premises at any time during the currency of such order, and is therefore liable to a penalty not. exceeding £5. It appears to- me that sections 167, 168,' and 169 of the Licensing Act. 1881, and section 13 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1893, and sections 26 and 27 of tOre Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1895, are to be read together in order to ascertain whether the words "any licensed person" or "any licensed premises" are to be deemed to apply to all "licensed persons" and "licensed premises" throughout the colony as, taking sections 26 and 27 alone, it might appear, or whether these words are governed by section 167 to which section 26 directly and section 27 by implication refer. Section 167 of the Licensing Act, 1881, is the only section empowering Justices to make what are known as prohibition orders and it authorises them to "forbid any licensed person to sell to" the drunkard "any liquor for .the space of one year" and "any licensed person" here mentioned cannot mean eveiy licensed person for "such Justice or any other two Justices may at the same or any other time in like .manner forbid the selling of any such liquor to the said drunkard by any other licensed person of any other city, town or district to which, the drunkard sha.il or may be 'likely to resort for the. same." From, this last sentence it may be inferred that the "any licensed person" mentioned first is any licensed person of the city, town or district in which the drunkard is living at the time of the making of the order. The word "order" is not used in tihe 167 th section but the action of the Justices is referred to as being an "order" in subsequent sections in the amending acts. "The Justices presiding in such Court shall by writing under the hands of any .two such Justices forbid any licensed person 'to sell," etc. Tliis, I take it, is a, personal direction to individual licensed persons, and is not and cannot I think be strained to mean any other licensed person than those to whom such writing shall be directed. The law respecting prohibition remained as provided by sections 167, 168, 169, for eleven years, when in 1893 section 13 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control' Act, 1893, a penalty of £lO etc., was enacted. Up to this time it was no breach of the law for the drunkard to purchase liquor from. li- ■ censed persons who were forbidden to sell to him ; and again by sections 26 and 27 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1895, further evasions of the law were provided for. Section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 1888, provides that "every Act passed in amendment or extension of a formed- Act shall be read and construed according to the definitions and interpretations contained in such former Act except so far as the same are altered by or inconsistent with the amending Act or Acts." No case has ever been brought, during the existence of the Licensing Act; 1881, charging any person with a breach of sections 168 and 169 who was resident outside the district in which the prohibition order was currents and I must come" to the conclusion that the words "any licensed person" and "licensed premises" have the same meaning in sections 26 and 27 as have been attached to them in the •governing section 167, that is they have a local and not colonial meaning. Section 26 6ays : "If any person against whom a prohibition order has been made under section 167 is.found ion any licensed premises." It appears to me that a,purely liberal interpretation of this section as claimed, by the prosecution would amount to an absurdity— ■ the person against whom this prohibition order is made and enforced is the licensed person, who is prohibited from selling to the drunkard. The original intention of these provisions of the Act of 1881 was to he'ip tie drunkard against, and despite himself, i.e., by_ prohibitinw certain persons from supplying him; subsequent sections made it penal for any other person to supply him with liquor. * The section 13 of the Alcoholic Liquors Act, 1893, was passed to prevent the drunkard firom procuring .liquor for'himself through others. Between 1893 and 1895 frequent prosecutions for procuring liquor occurred, and when the drunkard was found on licensed premises, unless actually seen consuming the liquor, conviction rarely followed. Then, the Act of 1895 brought on section 26. If the Legislature had intended to prevent the drunkard from entering any licensed premises, whether within or without 'the district in which the prohibition order was in force, it would have unequivocally stated so. The object of tihe order m the first place is to prevent the supply of liquor to the drunkard—his entrance on licensed premises is a small matter compared to his obtaining liquor—yet the I one is made according to the reading by the prosecution of general application and tihe order upon which it hinges is confined bo the district named in the order. A'b»any rate tihe contention of the prosecution leaves the matter "in such a doubtful position that j I think (the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The case against the defendant must uently be dismissed.