"A TRIFLING OFFENCE”

Southland Times, Issue 19123, 15 December 1923, Page 5

"A TRIFLING OFFENCE”

POLICE v DEVERAUX. MAGISTRATE GIVES JUDGEMENT. At the Magistrate’s Court on Thursday Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., gave his reserved judgment in the case Police v Deveraux as follows: “These are two informations charging the defendant with (1) giving an order for liquor and failing to give a statement in writing of his name and address to th? vendor, and (2) assisting in the commission of an offence by not signing his name on the order. “The evidence showed that Deveraux went to Roope’s brewery to obtain a two gallon keg of beer which he intended to take into the no-license district of Invercargill. By section 147 of the Licensing Act, he must personally sign the order for liquor or give his name and address. Not being a fluent penman, a friend who hap 4>ened to be there filled up the order for him at the brewery and the friend signed the name Deveraux to the order, with the consent of Deveraux. All the details of the order was accurately filled in. As to the first offence charged I do not see how it can succeed. If. an order is not signed by the buyer personally, the seller who acts on such an order commits an offence (section 147 clause three) but there is nothing in the Act making it penal for a buyer, if the order is signed by an agent. “As to the second information the question is whether Deveraux assisted in the commission of an offence under section 8 of the Act of 1914, which makes it penal for anyone tq sell liquor without personally signed order. By section 53 of the Justice of the Peace Act which is the same as section 5 of the Summary Justice Act, 1848 of England. It is enacted that every person who aids, assists or procures the commission of an offence may be convicted for such an offence either before or after the conviction of the principal offender. In this case the principal offender, that is the seller of the liquor, has not been convicted, but it is not necessary that he should. But it is necessary that an offence must be clearly made out. On that point there can be no uncertainty as the admitted facts show that liquor was sold on an unsigned order. The case of McMillan v Osborn shows that presence at the commission of the offence may be enough. Mere tacit acquiescence is not sufficient but here the defendant must be taken to have authorised the signing of his name, when it was done in his preesnee and the defendant must be convicted. As the offence is in itself very trifling, he will be convicted and discharged.”