A LICENSING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7787, 19 August 1903, Page 2

A LICENSING CASE.

APPEAL ALLOWED. THE BONA FIDE TRAVELLER QUESTION. His Honor Mr Justice Dehniston ga,ve judgment this morning in the licensing appeal case Join Cooper (appellant) v. James Andrews (respondent). Appellant, licensee of the Papanui! Hotel, had been convicted by a Magistrate on a charge of supplying liquor to others than bona; fide travellers on a Sunday. His Honor said that the appeal -was -•on certain agreed fafcts. Tyo nien, on© of whom -was camping at Nfew Brighton, and the other of whom was a friend who had joined him there on a Sunday morning, rod© to defendant's house on bicycles. In, reply to inquiries, they stated they had. come from New Brighton', and were going, straight back again. Ne\Y Brighton was seven and a; half miles from Papanui. They were I'hen each, supplied with a small glass of shandygaff. The m«n afterwards admitted that they hud made up their mioids to go to Papanui from New Brighton for a ride and foy a drink, hn.t this was not known to defendant. On these facts, the Magistrate, relying on P/nn v. Alexander, (1893, 1, Q.B.D p. 522) convicted the acoujsed. His Honor thought himself bound by that decision, although he had a great deal of sympathy with thfe | reasoning and result of tue dissenting ' judgment of Cave, J. In that case, however, the majority had held that the- alleg ed bona. fide travellers shads walked' to the defendant's premises' in a; villa"© 'barely over the three-mile limit from Nottingham, and evidently laid put to accommodate Sunday tipplers from that city, solely with a view to beer ; and that they were therefore net bona fid© travellers, and nob /believed to 'be such by the defendant. That judgment followed' Taylor v. Humphries, (34 L.J., M.C., p. 1). But tho law was there stated in the following terms : — " We think that a person would, be a. traveller within the exception, if ihe came abroad from any of the motives above: suggested as legitimate (i.e., either, from 1 a- desire to enjoy "country sights andssounds, or from 1 any other motive of business or pleasure, except desire for excessive drinking) and by reason thereof needed refreshment. But if Lie | came abroad merely bo.-Hise lia desired to go to a public-houtd r.r.i obtain drink,, he would not." His Honor could not see why two men who choosa on a Sunday evening to tak^ a bicycle ride of seven and a telf miles and back, and before their return called at a public-house for a small' glass of shandygaff, were to -be presumed to have dona so merely becaiuse they desired to go to a. public-house and obtain drink. Certainly it could not be said to lsave been from a desire for excessive drinking. The pleasure of the ride was expressly given as on© of tb4 motives of their action. He was also of opinion that the defendant had truly believed that the men were bona. fide travellers, and had taken all reasonable precautions to ascertain whether or not they were such. That question was, on the authority of the majority of the Judges in Hammond .v. Hobson, open to the Court, and not merely to> the Justices ; a>ad such defence was, on the. authority of all the Judges in that case, not .taken away by Section 22, Sub-section 5, of the Act of 1895. He had nob overlooked 1 the fact that burden of proof was by that section thrown on the defendant. The appeal would be allowed.