SALE OF LIQUOR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 114, 17 May 1939, Page 9

SALE OF LIQUOR

QUESTION OF TRIVIALITY SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF LIQUOR “Every magistrate and every judge, before he assumes office, takes a judicial oath that he will administer justice in accord with law,” observed Sir Hubert Ostler, the presiding judge at the Wanganui sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday, allowing two appeals against decisions of Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M., of Feilding, in respect to liquor served to persons in the Gretna Hotel, Taihape, after hours. Police Sergeant’s Appeal. The appellant was the sergeant of police at Taihape, John Murdoch McRae. The respondent in one case was John Quirk, licensee of the hotel, and in the other James Garden Stephens, a barman. Mr. N. R. Bain, Crown Solicitor at Wanganui, appeared lor the police ■ appellant, and Mr. J. M. Hussey, of Wanganui, foi the two respondents. The facts of the case were that sales of liquor had been made after hours by a barman to two men who said they were boarders. Barman and licensee had been prosecuted by the police under tne Licensing Act. The magistrate had found as a fact that a sale had been maae, but had dismissed the informations. Askea later by the police to give his reasons, he said that Tie had acted on any power the law gave him, on the ground that tne offences were trivial, if on no other ground. "No judge or magistrate is justified in ignoring the law and not enforcing it if he tniims it will inflict hardsm P in any particular case,” His Honour observed, pointing out that in this case the learned magistrate, when dismissing the information in the first place, nad not given any reason for dismissing them. There was nothing to show tnat, when giving his decision, he had thought the offence trivial and exercised discretionary power, in which case the basis of an appeal would be that he had exercised his discretion wrongly. He had found, as a fact, that there had been a sale ol liquor and, several days later, when asked to find grounds lor his decision to dismiss the informations had said that he found as a fact that they were trivial. No Exceptional Circumstances. “No magistrate has power to find facts afterwards to support a decision,” said His Honour. ”There were no exceptional circumstances in this case. A simple matter of a barman supplying liquor to men who were not 1 boarders. It is important tnat Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act should not be used for frittering away any appeal to the Licensing Act, and especially important, because of the appalling toll of life and limb on our roads, tnat nothing should be done to weaken police control of the sale of ; liquor. To do so would increase the , dangers which have reached such ’ alarming proportions.” . His Honour held that as the law ( provided that a licensee was to be re- . garded as responsible lor the acts of j his servant, the appeal against the ] magistrate’s decision in the Quirk ( case would also be allowed. 1 ‘Both appeals are allowed,” he said, ] “and I will refer both cases back to { the learned magistrate to impose an ; appropriate penalty."