LICENSING LAW RULING

Taranaki Daily News, 2 October 1929, Page 11

LICENSING LAW RULING

LOWER COURT CHALLENGED i . A.' i'! TWO PENALTIES FOR ONE ACTION. .ARGUMENT IN COURT OF APPEAL, •’ By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Oct 1. A Full Appeal Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr. Al. iAlyersLi and Judges Herdman, Adams, MacGregor and Ostler, is engaged to-day hearing the appeal of Edward Frank Smith; police constable, of Nelson (appellant), against Keith Hickson, licensee of the Royal Hotel, Nelson (respondent):. Three informations were laid in June against respondent by appellant, alleging, that on April 27, 1929, respondent did, at a..t.iin,e;.jW.h?n the.hotel >Was directed to be closed by the Licensing Act, sell liquor in such premises, that he did expose liquor for salej and open ■.fhe premises for the sale of-liquor. The information was heard at Nelson on June JO before Air. T, EL Alaiinsell, - S.AI. Respondent! pleaded, guilty to the first information and was fined £2 2a and costs. The magistrate held that the opening for sale and exposing were part of the transaction of the sale, upon which respondent had been convicted, and ..accordingly dismissed the two latter informations, ; Appellant is appealing on the grounds that the magistrate made an erroneous decision of law in dismissing these two informations. Air. C. F. Fell appeared for appellant and Alessrs. W. Perry and S. M. Mbynahan for the respondent. Air. Fell said the informations (were laid under Section 190 of .the Licensing Act. He submitted there were, three separate and distinct offences and respond dent could be convicted on each informa* lion though all arose out of . the same set of facts. Further, that it was not open to respondent to raise the defence of a previous conviction, as he was charged, with three distinct offences. It was pure* Jy a (coincidence that the evidence of the same witness went the length of es? tablishing three offences. He I contended that in this case there were three wrongful acts, not three informations arising out of one wrongful act. The provisions of the Crimes Act relating to previous convictions were of no avail to respondent as the informations in question -were for summary offences. ■ Air. Perry, for the respondent/ said, each case must stand on its own facts. .In the case then' before the court the. evidence called in support,of the charges of opening and' disposing was sufficient to establish an illegal sale and respondent having been convicted of the niajor offence should not be convicted on other charges. Conviction on major charges acted as bar to convictions on lesser charges. If appellant’s contention was correct it is possible that a publican could be convicted for seven or eight offences out of one set of facts, such as, for instance,, -selling liquor to a youth after hours. This would have disastrous results and was clearly far beyond the intention of the Legislature. j j Judgment was reserved.