Police Court.

Southland Times, Issue 13509, 17 July 1896, Page 3

Police Court.

Thursday, 16th July. (Before J. W. Poynton, Esq., S.M.) BREACH OF THS LICENSING ACT. His Worship gave judgment as follows in the case in which W. J. Hyndman was charged with having sold intoxicating liquor without a license : The defendant is a storeman. His employer is not the holder of a license to sell liquors. A purchaser sent an order for goods and a pound note to pay for them. The money was . placed by the accused in his master’s till, and the goods were sent to the person ordering them. In the order, in addition to the goods usually sold by defendant’s employer, a bottle of schnapps was asked for. This the defendant bought at another store and sent to the purchaser in a parcel with the other goods. A bill was made out showing the prices charged for each article, including the schnapps. This bill was receipted as paid, and signed by the defendant on behalf of his master. The price charged for the bottle of schnapps was greater than that paid for it by the defendant. This profit went to his master, who knew nothing of the transaction, and who had previously forbidden the accused to purchase and send alcoholic liquors to customers. The question for the court is : Was the defendant guilty of an illicit sale, or was he the agent of the purchaser ? Profit is not essential to make a legal sale, and many sales are conducted without profit, and even at a loss. The Licensing Act does not require money to pass, but that “ a transaction in the nature of a sale took place. If in the list of goods required by the purchaser a particular brand of goods was required, say biscuits, which the accused’s employer had not in stock, and the defendant went out and purchased this particular article at another shop, and sent it as the schnapps wore sent in this case, showing a profit, it would certainly be a “ transaction in the nature of a sale ” and not a purchase by an agent on behalf of his principal. A peculiar feature of the case is that the defendant fell into a trap set to catch his master. Of course that has nothing to do with the question of his guilt or innocence, but it is a matter for the court to consider in inflicting a penalty. This court should not be made a weapon of by contending factions with which to avenge their feuds. For this reason, and because the defendant was only technically guilty of an offence, and did nob derive any profit from the transaction, which appears to be an isolated one, a merely nominal penalty will bo imposed. Accused will be fined Is and ordered to pay costs 17s 6d.—Mr Hall appeared for defendant. AFFILIATION CASE. George Mills, charged with failing to obey an order of the court to contribute 6s per week to the maintenance of the illegitimate child of Amy Ellen Phillips, did not appear and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended until Monday in order to give him an opportunity to pay up arrears.