LIQUOR RESTRICTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3802, 25 January 1927, Page 8

LIQUOR RESTRICTION.

INTRODUCTION TO SANATORIUM. . LITTLE-KNOWN BY-LAW. CHRISTCHURCH, January 19. Apparently it is not generally known that there is a by-law under which it is a punishable offence to aid in the introduction of spirituous liquor into the Cashmere Sanatorium. 'Under this by-law a charge was brought against Oscar Egden, licensee of the Sandridge Hotel, in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M. Egden, who was represented by Mr F. D. Sargent, pleaded not guilty to aiding and abetting George Brydon in introducing spirituous liquor into the upper sanatorium. Sub-inspector J. Mathew said that the charge was laid under the Justices, of the Peac<j Act in conjunction with a bylaw governing the sanatorium, which stated that spirituous liquors might not be introduced without the permission of the medical superintendent. v Mr Sargent said that no one seemed, to know of the by-law, which had not been gazetted. The legal profession was unaware of' it, and the superintendent of the institution appeared to have kept it “under his hat.” Sub-inspector Mathew said that a man named Brydon at the sanatorium wrote to the licensee of the hotel asking for two bottles of whisky and three of beer, which were to be _ brought out by another man." Brydon was to meet the messenger at the foot of the- hills. ' Mr Sargent said., that the case was another example of the danger of making by-laws by regulation of which the public could not be expected to be aware. Even the secretary of the board had not a copy of these by-laws. However, he contended that the police case had not been proved. The liquor was left a mile from the institution. It was a very grave injustice to the public that the authorities should make a by-law like this and keep it “under their hats,” and then have a man charged under it. He suggested that the main object of-the police in bringing the proceedings was to make the by-law known to the public. The Magistrate dismissed the case, without prejudice, but added that he could not regard it as trivial. Mr Sargent: It would be a serious affair in ordinary circumstances, but in the present one the degree of guilt is trivial.