LIQUOR AT THE RACES.

Observer, Volume XXVIII, Issue 28, 28 March 1908, Page 2

LIQUOR AT THE RACES.

No More Deputy-Licensees,

THE racing clubs of the Dominion have received a sharp warning — by the vicarious suffering of another person — that it is necessary to discontinue a practice which has been very general. Hitherto, it has not been considered that the person who conducts the booth for alcoholic refreshments on a race- course must necessarily be a hotel- keeper. So long as he held a permit to sell for the time being under an existing license, that has been regarded by the authorities as sufficient compliance with the law. If the authorities didn't say so in as many words, they at any rate tacitly recognised the practice by not opposing the granting of permits to the deputy-licensees, and by allowing them to carry on business.

Now, however, it seems that the authorities have suddenly awoke to the fact that in the past they have been lax, and at the first opportunity after the discovery of their own remissness they have descended heavily upon the unlucky culprit. The case in point occurred at the Kawakawa races on Anniversary Day. It has been the custom of the Kawakawa Racing Club, as of other clubs, to invite tenders for the purchase of the right to the publican's booth at their races, guaranteeing to the successful tenderer the use of the license of a local hotel, by friendly arrangement with the licenseholder. Under such a system, persons entirely unconnected with tbe liquor trade were able to speculate, and the club's funds presumably benefited by the wider competition.

The prospect of a profitable investment seems to have attracted the notice of Arthur Fussell, an Auckland painter who was working in the township. Fussell tendered, his tender was accepted, and on the race-day he conducted the booth, practically as an offshoot oC the local Junction Hotel. Other persons had been allowed to do the same at other race-meetings, but in Fussell's case, the line had to be drawn. Someone had found that only the holder of a license was entitled to sell liquor, and Fussell was summoned for selling without a license. As to the facts of the case there could be no dispute. Fussell was not -a licensed person, and yet he had been selling. The fact that similar breaches of the law had been winked at could not; justify his offence, and he could do no other than plead gnilty to tbe charge.

In the circumstances, it might bave been supposed tbat a nominal fine would bave served a.ll purposes, Fnssell had merely followed the established precedent of past years. Certainly, the practice was unlawful, and had to be stopped. Therefore, there could be no cavilling at tbe prosecution. But it was simply Fussell's misfortune that his case happened to be the first possible example after the wrongfulness of the practice was discovered. The Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr R. Stone Florauee), however, evidently considered that the example must be an emphatic one. Accordingly, he imposed the stiff penalty of £5, with £4 costs. Fussell waa punished with as much severity as would probably have baen shown had his breach of the law been deliberate and flagrant.

With the general principle that licensed trade should only be carried on by persons licensed in the regular way, there can be no disagreement. To permit the temporary use of licenses by casual persons leaves the door open to too many possible abuses to be tolerable. The singular point is that the loose custom that has prevailed on race- courses in the past should only be discovered at this late hour. Still more curious is it tbat the person whose apparently innocent contormity to custom gave the oppor* tunity for calling attention to the mistake should be treated as though he were a hardened and deliberate offender. There are instances where justice nods, and Arthur Fussell's experience in the Kawakawa Court certainly appears to be one of them.