ALLEGED UNLAWFUL SELLING OF LIQUOR.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 11 March 1908, Page 2

ALLEGED UNLAWFUL SELLING OF LIQUOR.

POLICE v. PRESTON

INFORMATION DISMISSED

The Magistrate, Mr R. L. Stanford, gave judgment in the above case yesterday morning as follows:—

The defendant, licensee of the Aramoho Hotel, is charged' that On Sunday, February 9th, he did expos© certain liquor to wit, beer and whisky, for sale during the time at which such licensed premises are directed to be clos- j erl. 'There appears to ..have been a iraniber of persons, some 4 or 5 standing about the door of the hotel, .among Whom was Mrs Preston, the wife of the defendant, when Constable Gleeson arrived on the scene, about 8 p.m., while he snys he saw 3 or 4 leaving about the same time. On entering the hotel he found the passage leading to the bar parlour lighted, as was also the parlour itsetf, but there was no light in the bar itself. Two men., Shelley, who was not a boarder, and _McGinnis, who was a boarder, were drinking beer and shandy-gaff in the bar parlour. Preston, himself, was drinking whisky. Preston, in defence, says that he was concluding a deal over some •poultry with Shelley1, a neighbour, ,wh"> had just sold his tea gardens, and that having just arranged to buy the poultry, be asked Shelley to have a drink, and1 that he also asked1 McGinnis woh had been a boarder for some years to join them. In effect, therefore, the defen.ee is that defendant was not exposing the drink in the bar for sale, but that the only exposure was as'in White y. Nestor" 13, N.Z.L.R., 751; where it was held that the mere exposure of. liquor in a bar, so as to be visible to others,-while drink lawfully sold to a lodger i 5 being handed out from the - bar, does not constitute an, exposure for sale to others, or an exposure for sale generally within the rceanino: of section 155 of the Licensing Act. 1881. There w.asa conflict of evidence as to the question of the slide between the bar, and the bar parlour being up or down, but I am inclined to believe defendant when, he says it was not raised. :but that the -defendant, had to bendl dow:n to get into the bar to fetch drink for them. Justice Williams, said "If the slide of the bar is up, and the surouniding* circumstances lead to the conclusion that liquor could be had by discreet persons on paying for it. then the liquor is exposure fir sale. Rex v. Eeggins N.Z.R.P.,.. t>. 269 'The surrounding circumstances l?ad me' to the cionclusion tV.nt the exposure of the liquor was not for sale, but only for tf>e legitimate-purpose of supplying . a lodger,' and a .truest of defendant. There wns in evidence of liquor being consumed on the licensed •premises- excent by a lodger a-nrl a gnrst and the on.lv expoTnve w>?s to supply them with drmk. Therefor?, t'i.e .information would be dismissed.