TIKITIKI LICENSING CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 14047, 18 July 1916, Page 4

TIKITIKI LICENSING CASE.

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE

COOPER

TH-l_ APPEAL t'I'HKLI)

, A judgment oi much interest to Ll it* rising coastal township of 'tho Kant Coast, was. read. by. .U'^vegislrar, Mr WA. Barton, S.M., at'y'the Magistrate's 1 Court to-day, being- the decision of Ji isr - Honor Mr J usiace. .Copper, m the banco case or Johii Sclirpdei (appellant) v. ' Patrick ' Dtuldy ■" (respondent)' heard at the last 'sitting of "lire Supreme Court. 1 Tliis was" an appeal on points of law fiomtho decision of Mr 11: S. Florancc, 8.M. , convicting tlie appellant upon »vi ■ infoi'inatiion charging him with introdut-. 1 ing^ intoxicating liquor, A*iz whisky, into i a Maori village contrary to Section .3 ol the Maori- Councils 'Amendment Act, 1903. ■'."After .setting out the circumstanc_s, and argument m 'the case his Honor *.utv_eeds -. "The ii**„t <j_v.testivin, thd'efore, is Avhether the court can hold that the introduction of- intoxicating liquor into a Maori kaiuga, village, or pah, which is not' Withi- a Maori-district proclaimed under the Act of 1900y is »n offence' with'iii' the meaning of sub-sec-tion of section 3 of the Act of 1903. "I was, when tlid case was argued before me, strongly inclined to uphold Mr Nolan's contention, that there was an independent .substantive, offence created" by sub -section 1,- but upon a very careful consideration of 'the Acts of 1900 and 1*903, -.1 feel compelled to come to the" opposite conclusion. ' '•'lf* the '•object of section 3 Avas to make the trier c possession of^ liquor by a person r.-sldhrg m or passing through a -'Maori -kailiga, .village, or pah a-'sub-stanti\-'e penal offence, where the kainga, village, or pah was outside a "Maori district,'' one Avould - have - expected to liave found - '- such- a;- provision, m part • X df the -'lncensing Act, 1908, among- the special provisions as to Maoris. These special provisions apply "(a): to "Native licensing - districts" constituted under .section .s' of tho "Licensing Act, and (b) to "proclaimed areas" under section /i 72 of that Act. It is not an offence under baider any of these" special prfmsions fpr a, person residing m, or passing through a Native kainga, A-illage, Or pah to-ha\*e'iklubr for his own consiimptioii, the "• offences 'tinder part X a^re the selling, supplying, or giving -to ".Natives, except'under the conditions prescribed ih part X, intoxicating liqUoiy or the sending ' : or ; -delivering into proclaimed areas lquor • 'Which' the person sending or. delivering the same .has reasonable ground to suspect is intended to**- be sold, or exposed Or kept 'for sale within such area, v.- • - "Section 3 of the Act, 1903, is a part (if a* general schefne created by the "legislature for the purpose* of giA'iri'g to Maoris ai; system of local self-govern-ment-, and all the provisions of the principal Act ' and its amendments are »n aid of and limited to the establishment of such a system-. The creation of a "Maori district" under the principal Act , is .Tj Condition precedent to the operation I of -the provisions of the Act and its amendments. The intention '"' of the Legislature- is clearly stated m the prea*inlsle' to' thfe 'Act of 1900, the concluding words of which are '■''■ 'and Ayhereasj m furtherance of these objects, it is expedient to make provision for the establishment of local electi\:e bodies of -Maoris'? within- such districts for. the purposes aforesaid,: and to invest these bodies with the! powers ot" carrying out such rules ahd regulations -as may be ■prescribed, and of enabling them to ■flame 'necessary, by-laws; and to give ' effect, to the same.' And the poAver. to prevent by* by?la\v tlie introduction liy any .person, Avhethei- European or 'Maori, of intoxicating, liquor into a Maori kianga, village, or pah .within a'., Maori district ■" constituted under the Act, is one of the powers expressly 'given to, and limited to. a Maori Council elected under the. Act. ;> | '."In iny -opinion'."' the 'Maori kaiifga, Village, or pah', refered to m sub-sec*-taori 1 of section 3 of the Act of 1903 means, therefore,-' a'- -Maori -kainga, yil- ' -la-ge, or pah within a 'Maori district' : constituted under the Act of 1900, and • tliis construction gives - effect to the introductory words, Tn addition to any line imposed by the Council, for the breach'- of any by-law under section 16 of the principal Act.' The Legislature, -i-'.i my opinoin, thought it necessary to provide an adtlitiona? punishment, beyond « mere- fine recoverable by ciA'il process for thei ntroduction into a Maori kainga, A-illage, or -pah within" a "Maori district' of intoxicating liquor and for that reason enacted sub-section 1. The wqrds 'whether a Maori or not' were intjroducecl into" the sub-section to meet the anieridemnts' 1 have already referrea to of sections 16 • and 25. Sub-section 4 of section 3 also* clearly limits irie forfeiture of -liquor->introduced into any "Maori kainga, village, or pah to a kainf-a/ village, or pah Avithin a' 'Maori district' for the only person authorised to sejze and deal with such liquor as forfeited liquor is '-'the chairman' of a Maori" 'Council or "i-onie ' person 'acting uhdey his authority. This indicates that* the' term 'Maori kainga, A'illage, c-r pah' Where' used m section ' 3 has *he limited meaning I haA'e stated. I 'The other question 'argued Avas whether there -was 'any jevidence that the appellant introduced liquor into the Native village knoAvn as Tilcitild. Under the Act of 1903 a Maori Council may with the approval of the Governor define the ' limits' 1 .•■• arid' boundaries" of a kainga, village, or pah (section 6)., Where. such boiibdari'e'ff Are riotr'so de'then what are .<■' the' reheonable limits of' a kailiga, A-illage, or pall is a question' of fact. The Magistrate lias found' that the' village'' of '.Tilritikfc 'was on 'the right' ha'ndj side of a main arterial public roadL while' the boardirig house into -Avhich the liquor Avas introduced was" Oil Maori land on the other side "of 'the' road. ' '-.' '■■■' ''*'"'-- ' , -"There, vias, ' iir -my ' opinion," siiflicSeilt evideiice justifying the Magistrate ', m findin'g-'that -the defendant was m- possession of seme of the Avfvislty Obtained from tlib' hotel at Port Awanui, but the case dbeV> not- disclose sufficient material tn enable me' to say whether the boarding -'"hbu'se "was* reasonably' 'within the boundaries of a 'Native ■ yillage, . for it does not state how near to the public road' the NatiA'e habitations were. Had it becfn necessary to do so T "'should have referred- the case to' the Magistrate for a .- further statement of tlie facts found by him: I may say, hqwevef, that a Native -village does? not necessarily mean merely the land occupied 1 by the house? or' whares of the : NatiA-es. ' It "• may m- - elude '.a ''much '-large-* area: (if land, and the question what are' the boundaries of I a Native village 'depends upon the facts proved' ih each particular case. "I allow 1 the 'nppeal upon tlie ground that section of live Act of 1903 applies only' to a Maori kainga, villages, or ■■ pahs/within a Maori district* constituted under"' the Act' of .3 900, -a nd therefore that the ' conviction' oT the appellant, cannot be ''sustained and l'uist be 'quashed. "T mako' no order of costs, .a-**' tho respondent is ;i. police officer and laid, the 1 information, m the' '-course of his duty and there was, a. genuine point of^ law 1 to 'be ' , 'i , <"lHml : Batlev v. Culleri, 6 N.Z. 1..X.. BC. 755." - - " ; 1 ; Mv 'Bui'iiard'"' -appeared 'for appellant ' and Mr J. W. Xphui fop .the Crown.