THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER. ANOTHER MAGISTERIAL DECISION".

Otago Witness, Issue 2650, 28 December 1904, Page 4

THE BONA-FIDE TRAVELLER. ANOTHER MAGISTERIAL DECISION".

Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., stationed on the West Coast, gives the following opinion regarding the " bona fide traveller": — " In my opinion ihc bona fide traveller still exists, but the right to supply him with liquor during the time licensed premises should be closed has been taken away by the repeal of that part of subsection 5 of section 22 of ' The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1895,' which relates to bona fid© travsllers. Further, if a bona fide traveller is found on licensed premises during the time the same should be closed he is not liabfe to be fined under s-ection 4-2 of ' The Licensing Act, 1904,' but section 157 of 'The Licensing Act, 1881,' not having been repealed, the onus of proof thai; the person is a bona fide traveller will fall on the licensee. Under these circumstances, I think hotelkeepers -will be wise in not admitting after hours, excepting an inmate, servant, or lodger, unless the-y are fully prepared to prove their right to do so under section 42 of ' The Licensing Act, 1904.' " -WANGANOI, December 20. In the- Magistrate's Court this morning 1 judgment was given by Mr Stanford, S.M., in a test case brought to determine the meaning of section 4-2 of the Licensing Act. The licensee of 'The CastleelifE Hotel, who lives three miles from town, was charged with selling liquor on Sunday to a person who claimed- to be a bona fide traveller. The facts were admitted. The magistrate held that section 157 of the act of 1881, which empowered the licensee to supply a - bona fide traveller, was not- repealed by the act of'lS9s, and was not impliedly repealed by the act of 1904. The. magistrate said that in the present case the Legislature, though it had its eye on sections 156, 157, and 153 of the act of 1881, and whilst it repealed 156, had left 157 entirely alone, and - he could not therefore hold it to Tje in any" way repealed. He held, furLher, that there were indications in the 1904 act that the bona fide traveller was still recognised, since section 45 allowed him to be on licensed premises during closed hcius. As to section. 56 of the 1904 act, he did not think the word "modified" could be enlarged to cover the repeal of a section. The case, therefore, was dismissed, the magistrate finding that there was no conflict between the act of 1904 and section 157' of the act of 1881.