LIQUOR AT A DANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18757, 10 January 1923, Page 8

LIQUOR AT A DANCE

PUKEKOMA CASE. The following is tho magistrate’s (Mr H. W. Bundle’s) delayed judgment in the case heard at fialclutha on December 12, when James Paterson and W. J. Roulston were charged with selling liquor in a noliccnse district:— “The defendants are charged with keeping liquor in a no-lieenso district, and also with tho sale of same in such district. The facta ns I find them are that bachelors at Pukekoma. decided at a. meeting in August to give a dance to tho residents of the district. Thirteen men attended the mooting. The question as to providing liquor at the dance was raised, hut the mooting decided against this. A committee was apparently formed of seven of those present to make arrangements for the dance, and a meeting of this committee was held about three days before the dance. At this meeting the question of providing alcoholic liquor was discussed, and expressedly or impliedly it was agreed that it should be. It was then arranged that Roulston should get whisky and Paterson ale. This was done, tho total cost of liquor provided amounting to about £2 10s. The defendants collected 4s 6d from each of 13 bachelors to cover tho cost. The expenses of tho dance, apart from the liquor, amounted to 10s 9d, and this was paid bv each of tho bachelors. The police contend that tho two defendants provided tho liquor and sold it. It is not suggested that any_ person other than tho hosts paid any portion of the expenses of tho dance, whether for liquor or otherwise. lam un-. ahle 'to find that liquor was kept for sale or that there was -any sale. A sale connotes a person who soils and one who buys. Tho liquor was procured by the defendants ns members of the committee, and on behalf of tho hosts of tho evening. That this is so is clear from the evidence of Mr Smith. In his evidence he does not suggest that he was not to pay his portion. The property in the liquor was in tho members of the committee, or possibly of tho defendants ns trustees for them. They merely collected from the other members of the committee the nortinn of an amount expended by them. Whether sumo was expended in purchase of liquor or anything else- is beside the question. The persons who bought tho liauor being already tho owners, how could there bo a sale to them? As stated at the hearing, proceedings at the dance in question reflected no credit on some members of the committee. If they are unable to behave decently they should in future have liquor without dances or dances without liquor. Tho information is dismissed.”