PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 96, 11 May 1900, Page 3

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

AN IMPORTANT DEOISION. The adjourned case of Police v. G. Duncan, in which the point had arisen as to whether prohibition orders were local or colonial in their effect, was further considered by Mr. Stanford, S.M., at the Court on Thursday. There was no appearance of defendant, who telegraphed that he was willing to accept the Magistrate's decision in the mitter.

His Worship stated that the prosecution in this case had been instituted under section 26 of the Alcoholic Liquor Sale Control Act Amendment of 1895. The defendant was a person against whom a prohibition order was issued at Wellington in December last, and admitted that he was the perron referred to in the order. The charge was a new one, and likely to meet with much argument, A prohibition order taken out against a person for certain assigned reasons under section 167 of the Licensing Act of 1881 forbids the selling of any liquor to the prohibited person by any licensed person of any other city, town, or district. The terms did not direct the Justice to restrict the order to any one district, and during its currency it appeared to hold good for any district or place in the colony. Section 168 of the same Act said that " If any licensed person during the currency of a prohibition order, and after a copy thereof has been served upon him, or with a knowledge in any other manner acquired, sell to any prohibited person any liquor," he would be liable to a penalty not exceeding .£lO. For fourteen years there had been no further legislation in the mat:er, but in 1893 the Legislature, for the first time, inflicted a fine on the prohibited person for being on licensed premises. Section 13 of the Act of 1893 stated that no person against whom an order has been made under section 167 of the Licensing Act of 1881 shall, during the currency of such prohibition order, procure alcoholic liquor from any licensed person within any district in which such prohibition order is in forceAny person committing a breach of this seotion is liable to a penalty not exceeding .£lO. A further alteration was made two years later, By Section 26 of this amending Act it was enacted: —" If any person against whom a prohibition order has been made under section 167 of the principal Act enters or is found on any licensed premises at any time duriDg the currency of such I order, he is liable to a penalty not] exceeding £5, and any licensed person who knowingly permits any person against whom a prohibition order is in existence to be or to remain on his licensed premises shall be liable to a penalty of not less than £5 and not exceeding £10." This section seemed, said His Worship, to have a general application to the licensed person, the prohibited person, and the district. Defendant would therefore be convicted and fined 20s. and costs.