LIQUOR IN NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2849, 21 October 1908, Page 9

LIQUOR IN NO- LICENSE DISTRICTS.

UNLAWFULLY TAKING ORDERS. SALUTARY PENALTIES. (Fko>c Our Own Cobhespondbnt.) BALCLIJTHA, October 15. At the Magistrate's Court at Balclutha yesterday, Mr Kenrick, S.M., presiding, James Sharp was charged with having received from Hannah Osborns, at Owaka, a-n order for liquor — two bottles of whisky — Owaka being in the Clutha no-license district. Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence. - Inspector O'Brien, representing the police, outlined the >ace. Itbe defendant, who was in the employ of a firm of grocers in Dunedin, who were also holders of a bottle license, took orders for groceries in Owaka, and took an order for two bottles of whisky from Mrs Oaborne, and Owaka was a no-license district. v Mrs Osborne, in her evidence, said she gave defendant an order for groceries on September 1, and Jso an order for two bottles of whisky. The goeds were duly forwarded to her. She said that defendant did not tell her anything about putting tho order in writing. Mr Hanlon said it was not a very satisfactory case. Mrs Osborne had not given her evidecce very clearly. When closely examined it was seen that she had formed her opinion about the •a»rder from the invoice. Sharp had instructions not to canvass for liquor, and he told the lady that. Be said the order had to be sent in in writing. He made it a practice to tell customers to write out the orders for whisky. In this case -the order for the whisky was taken on a different piece of paper from that on which the order for the groceries was~ taken. ■ The woman asked him to writ© out the order for the whisky, and in doing this he was acting as agent for the woman. James Sharp said he was travelling for Irvine aad Stevenson. He . had instructions not to take orders^ for liquor unless these were written out. H© got an order for groceries from Mrs Osborne, as set out in the invoice (produced). He had a special* book for groceries. He told Mrs Osborne that orders for liquor must be taken in writing. He sent in the orders for groceries and liquor in separate envelopes. He was positive Mrs Osborne was wrong when she said he wrote the orders all on the B<ime piece of paper.-'-Cross-examined by Inspector O'Brien, defendant said he received about 20 orders for whisky in the Owaka. district. He asked all the customers to write out their orders. His Worship said Mrs Osborne denied asking Sharp to write out the order for whisky. Mr Hanlon had said if he wrote out the order for Mrs Osborne he was her agent. He was not sure of that hi the ease of a man travelling for a firm like. this. It was a traveller's duty to understand the law, and in this case it was not very difficult to construe. He thought the order should have been produced. There was no doubt he had committed the offence, and he felt he must convict him. Mr Hanlon said Mr Stevenson had eaid that the orders were sent in as the traveller eaid. H« waß not now in the firm's employ, and was only a young man, therefor© he hoped his Worship would only enforce a moderate penalty. Sharp had not intended to evade the law in any way ; it was purely a mistake. His Worship said 't was a first offence, and he did not want to inflict a heavy penalty. H© would fine him £10 in this case, and ccsts (£2 9s). Defendant was liable to a, fine of £50. The same defendant was charged with taking an order from Archibald- Peat, farmer, for one dozen bottles of beer. It was shown in evidence that Peat gave defendant an order at Houipapa, the defendant -writing the order in a notebook. Peat did not know what firm he was ordering from. The defence in this case also (Mr Hanlon defending) was that defendant was merely an agent. His Worship said that the case was similar to tho first. The only difference was that Peat never knew whom he was getting the liquor from. 'He would convict defendant aJid order him to jom© up for sentence when called upon. It was a eocond conviction, but he did not liktJ to semi a joung man to prison. Tho costs would be £2 3s. Defendant was further oharged with receiving from Mrs Shaw an order for a bortle of whisky, and pleaded "Not guilty. Tho polic-3 offered no evidence in this case, and tho chargo was not proceeded with. , . ,- His Worship allowed a month m which to pay tho fine and costs. LIQWR NOTICES. Briggs Bros., of the Standard Brewery, Cavereham, were charged with selling liquor to D. Munro, of Baldubha, being aware that Balclutha was in a no-license district, and did fail to send a notice in writing to the clerk of tho court within reasonable time. Inspector O'Brien represented the polioe, and Sir R. R. Grigor appeared for the defendants. ■ Constable Lopdell said the beer was sent to Munro on the 4th of September, anjd he, as clerk of the court, did not receive notice until 17 days had elapsed. Mr Grigor, on behalf of defendant, admitted that the beer was seat to Munro on the 4th. "~ Inspector O'Brien said thaf Briggs, in failing to send the notice on the day or the day after, bad, committed a breach of l»be act. J

Mr -Grigor hald that the act did not say that the notice must be sent on the same day or the day after. The whole thing was extremely trivial, and if his Worship did not agree with him about the act, lie thought a conviction would suffice. His Worship said they would have to decide what was reasonable time in which to send ouL these notices. He thought they should Tae cent out within 24 hours, and it was negligence to allow further time to elapse. If they were to allow 17 days they could as well allow 70, in which case the notice would be useless, as the liquor would be lost eigltfr of. Defendants were liable to a fine of £20, but he would *in« fiict a penalty of 20b and costs (7s). Another information was withdrawn.