THE MEANING OF ‘SUPPLY'

Taranaki Daily News, 14 February 1931, Page 10

THE MEANING OF ‘SUPPLY'

AN IMPORTANT DECISION JIKEACIIES OF THE LICENSING ACT THKEE DEFENDANTS CONVICTED. An important decision was given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the Opunake Court yesterday in the cases that have been before the court for two months. James Minhinnick was charged with having on September 19 or 20, 1930, at Patiki Road, supplied liquor for consumption off licensed premises to one Roy Matahaere, a native within the meaning of the Licensing Act. The Hawera Brewery Co., Ltd., A. H. West an employee of that company, and Hapara Hoskin were all similarly charged in connection with the same incident.

Hapara Hoskin had pleaded guilty, tho other defendants pleading not guilty. Hoskin was convicted of the supply of liquor to Matahaere and was fined £7 10s and costs 10s. Minhinnick was convicted of aiding and abetting Hapara Hoskin and was fined £lO and costs £1 3s. West was convicted of supplying Minhinnick and was fined £lO with costs £1 6s. The information against the Hawera Brewery Company was dismissed.

At the request of Mr. Beechey, who appeared for defendants,. security was fixed for appeal. In a lengthy written judgment the magistrate stated that the facts were that Roy Matahaere, a Maori, wanted beer but had no money, so he asked Hoskin to get it for him and pay for it. On September 19 Hapara picked up Minhinnick at Oeo and they went together to the Hawera brewery, where Minhinnick bought two 18-gallon barrels of beer from West. As Hapara put it “Minhinnick did the business” and Hapara found the money. West did not see the financial transaction. He dealt entirely with Minhinnick, while Hapara effaced himself in the background.

West sold the beer to Minhinnick and took his directions to deliver the beer by carrier to Hoskin, Patiki Rqad. West was not told that Minhinnick’s silent companion was Hoskin. West instructed) the carrier to deliver to Hawkins or Hoskin, on the Patiki Road. The barrels were not addressed but the carrier was given an address, Mr. Hawkins. When he reached Patiki Road the nearest he could get to the name was Hoskin, and as he thought there was a mistake, in the name he put the beer in a paddock opposite Hoskin’s gate, the Maori who wanted the beer living next door. Hoskin took the beer and handed it, or some of it, to Matahaere. IN PROCLAIMED DISTRICT. It was admitted that the incident happened in a proclaimed district. Matahaere was admittedly a Maori. Minhinnick was a half-caste and a person who under the statute should not be supplied. Hapara was a person of more white than Maori blood and as such was not prohibited. Hapara pleaded guilty to supplying liquor to Matahaere, the others pleading not guilty, but the magistrate thought that Minhinnick and West were guilty of breaches of the statute. It was contended for Minhinnick that there was Supply by him to Matahaere, but the circumstances led to the irresistible inference that he knew all. about the transactions. He admitted that he did all the talking, and the magistrate did not ibelieve that Minhinnick when he purchased the ,beer did not know its ultimate destination, and he found him guilty of aiding and abetting Hoskin in the offence to which he had pleaded guilty—the supply in a proclaimed district of liquor to Roy Matahaere. i The same contention was made in regard to West and the Hawera Brewery Company that there was no case as there was no supply. The magistrate thought that West knew nothing about Matahaere and that the manager of the Brewery Company certainly knew nothing about Matahaere, but there was evidence of a supply by West to Minhinnick and the information had been amended accordingly and further argument heard.

Taking West’s case—Minhinnick was a person to whom supply was prohibited and was obviously a person with a large proportion of Alaori blood. West thought so as he asked Minhinnick if he had a right to get the beer and was content with. Minhinnick’s answer that he thought he wss. It should have been apparent to West that Minhinnick was a person with whom it was not safe to deal. Nei'ertheless he dealt with Al'inhinnick alone, sold him the beer, accepted payment from him, took his directions to deliver the barrels to Hoskin, or Hawkins, Patiki Road, by. carrier and the next day handed the ’ carrier the two barrels unaddressed to be delivered.

“SUPPLY” EQUAL TO “DELIVER.”

It was contended that unless there was a delivery to Minhinnick by West there was no supply. “Supply” was equivalent to “deliver,” and cases were cited. It was contended that Alinhinnick was the instrument of purchase, that the beer was not supplied to him as he never had possession, that in all the cases quoted the liquor went into the possession of a native, and that this liquor was “supplied” to Hoskin. The contention was that if there were a sale to him with delivery' to Hoskin Minhinnick did not get possession,, which was essential to “supply,” and therefore there was no offence.

The magistrate thought that too narrow an interpretation. “Supply” was to be given its ordinary and material meaning, which was to furnish with that which was wanted.' The underlying idea was that the person wanting a thing got it, but it did not necessarily follow that the manner of his getting it must bo direct receipt. He could be furnished with what was wanted by delivery to his ordei' as well as by direct personal possession. ' Cases were cited in support. Alinhinnick bought the beer ahd paid for it, there being no suggestion that it was for other than himself. He directed delivery and on the delivery, according to his direction, the supply was complete. If the word “supply” was not wide enough to include delivery to a nominee of a person prohibited under the Act of 1910, as well as manual delivery to such a person, then an easy avenue was opened to defeat the intention of the statute by delivering to fictitious or unscrupulous white men at the direction of persons themselves prohibited.