THE LICENSING ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3996, 14 October 1930, Page 62

THE LICENSING ACT.

DEVICE TO EVADE PROVISIONS.

DANCE CLUB FINED. WELLINGTON, October 10. “Looking at the whole of the facts I am unable to resist the conclusion that this method of obtaining the liquor was a device to endeavour to evade the provisions of the Licensing Act,” said Mr E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day in delivering judgment in the case in which the Athenaeum Club was charged with selling liquor in a no-license area. The defendant club was convicted and fined £lO. At the hearing Subinspector Lopdell conducted the prosecution and Mr W. Perry appeared for the defendant club. Mr Page said that the club held fortnightly meetings for dancing and music during a season prior to August 27, the date of the alleged sale. A constable purchased tickets at one of the club’s depots. He and a fellow constable attended the evening and at supper time liquor was freely handed round to those who chose to take it. It was urged that the liquor supplied was not the property of and not supplied by the club, but was the-gift of a member of the club. The practice of the club was to appoint a host and hostess ,who arranged and controlled the evening’s entertainment. On this occasion the host for the evening himself ordered from a wine and spirit merchant and paid for the liquor supplied. He also purchased a quantity of other things and in addition to the liquor took from hie own house a bottle of whisky and a bottle of cocktail. Prior to the evening he wrote a letter to the secretary of the club which read: “As host of the evening of the 27th for the Athenretim Club meeting I am taking the liberty'xif procuring at my own expense a small quantity of liquor. This I am having delivered to the Embassy Hall and will be pleased if you will dispense it to my guests and members of the Athenaeum Club.”

If the matter stood there it might be contended that the supply of this liquor to the constables was a voluntary gift by a member of the club and that there had been no sale of liquor,” said Mr Page. The evidence shows, however, that on each one of their evenings throughout the three years of their exist-ence-the host for the evening has supplied the liquor and on each occasion the same quantity and the same class of liquor was supplied. The cost of the liquor was £3 4s, and on each occasion the host was voted by the club a grant of £3 3s as an entertainment allowance. On each occasion a letter was obtained from the host in terms similar to that above quoted.” Mr Page said he entertained no doubt that in purchasing the liquor and having it delivered to the hall\the host for the evening was acting as agent for the club. It was the club that in reality arranged for thp procuring and the supply of the liquor, and the club that in reality paid for it. “ I am of opinion, therefore, that the transaction constituted a sale of the liquor and that the defendant club must be convicted,” said Mr Page. Mr Perry said that the club apparently acted upon a misconception of the law, and it was a matter for a nominal penalty’ Security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the fine and costs, plus £lO 10s.