BULLS COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8804, 4 May 1907, Page 2

BULLS COURT.

• At Bulls Court yesiorday, before S. L. Stanford. S.M., Frank Rhodes, proprietor of the Eangitikei Hotel, was charged under the Licensing Act of 1894, Bub-section 4G, with selling liquor to a Maori for con» sumption off the hotel premises. Sergeant Bowden, of Feilding, prosecuted, Mr Rhodes being de« fended by Mr L. Cohen. Warren Hnnia gave evidence to show that on the 10th April he was requested by Mr L. 'McDonell, of Parewanui, to convey a letter containing money to Mr Rhodes at Bulls. He was told that the letter I contained a request for a jar of beer, so he got a sack from the stables and took, it to the hotel With hii#/ and the jar was put inside of the sack, which he afterwards put in Mr Arch. McDonell's buggy. HO did not know what became of the beer after reaching Parewanui. HO met Mr L. McDonell at his homo and told him that the sack was in the buggy. ' In reply, to Mr Cohen the Witness stated that L. McDonell told hifrt that the letter contained a request for beer. Mr Rhodes attached a label to the parcel. The label produced was the same ; he never opened the sack.

Cross-examined by Sergt. Bowden: He was quite sure that the ticket was on the sack; did not know who it was addressed to because he could not read English. Ho did not see the parcel again. Lionel McDonell stated that ho had asked Huuia to deliver a lotter to Mr Rhodes asking for two.gallons of beor for which he enclosod six shillings. The beer was brought to iPavewauui in his father's buggy. The letter produced was written by him to Mr Rhodes.

In reply to Sergt. Bowden, tho label was addressed to himself and the one produced was the same label. Arch. McDonell, in his evidence, said that he went to Bulls with Warren Hnnia and his wife on tho day mentioned, to transact some business. He saw a parcel in his buggy, but ho did not examino it nor could ho say to whom it was addressed. Constable Brecn said that ho had

visited Parewanui with Sergt, Bowdon; they had searched Mr McDoncll'S stables but fo\incl no trace of any jar. The jar was found afterwards at Mr Goilo's place. Pie never saw any label. For the defence Mr Cohen called Mr Rhodes, who admitted serving the liquor to Hunia on the order of Mr L. McDonell. He placed a twogallon jar of beer in a sack aud • labelled the same to Mr McDonell. ; The writing on tho label produced j was his handwriting. Richard -Goilo said that ho had consumed some of the beer outside of his brother's house that evening. Warren Hunia was not present; the whole of tho beer was not consumed

then. Henry Goile said that ho was absont from his home .on tho 10th April. Ho returned on tho 13th, when he found a jar containing beer in his yard. Tho jar was threo parts full, lie emptied the boor out and returned the jar to Mr Rhodes. Mr Cohen contended that the point at issue was a correct definition of the word supply. It had been proved that the Maori had not consumed any of the beer; ho had simply acted •as an agent between tho buyer and tho seller. Ho interpreted tho word supply to mean for consumption, tho native had not consumed any of tho beer in question, therefore the information was wrongly laid. A case was cited to prove this argument. Tho Magistrate was asked to consider tho position of a nativo carrier who was requested to carry liquor from a publican to hiss customers would ho be breaking the law by doing so. The Magistrate: "Yes." His Worship held the true meaning of Sub-section 4(j to bo, that any person who supplies liquor to any Maori for consumption off tho licensed premises is guilty of a breach of the law. To supply means to hand over, and it # seemod to him that liquor must not be supplied in that way to any Maori whatever. He was satisfied that Mr Rhodes was unaware of the gravity of the offence and although the Legislature provided for a flue not oxcooding £CO, he would give judgment for £ls and costs. Notice of appeal was given. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases : R. J. Williamson v. Keeni Paranihi, 16s and costs 15s 6d j F. Rhodes v. John Innes, £4 5s and costs ss; Same' v. John Cowdry, £l2 3s and costs'. £1 Is; W. B. Chonnells, assignee of Campion and King, v. J. O.owdry,£67 18s 4d and costs £4los lOd ; Same' v. A. Lynds, £2 Os 6d and costs 10s.