LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 9980, 4 May 1911, Page 6

LICENSING ACT.

A TECHNICAL BREACH.

The charge against Samuel Keedwell, manager of the Grey town branch of the W.F.O. £~ of having sold liquor in compliance with au order received from Albert Hayes, resident iv the No-Liceuso district ot Masterton and of failing to furnish the Olerk of the Court with Hayes , name and address, was continued after we went to press yesterday aUernoou. Details are appended. A pica of nut guilty was entered. ..Sergeant MiUor stated that the informations were laid under section 1-17 of "the Licensing act, which provided iv clause D that the vendor must furnish the Clerk of the Court with a statement of the purchaser's name and address. This, the Sergeant contended, had not been done, defendant having merely given the name as "Mr A. Hayes. Masterton." The Sergeant further held that defendant should not have sunnlied the liquor at all. Mr Robinson held that one of the informations did not point out in what respect tho breach took place. He would like to know where tho offence took place under section 147 of the Act. The Magistrate stated that Mr Kobiusou was entitled to know in what '•aspect the breach took place. Sergeant Miller stated that the law provided that the Court must be fur-ni-hed with the name and address of the purchaser of liquor. Hβ had seen the order, and did not know from it who or where accused was. Moreover, he had reasonable grounds to suppose that the hqnor was intended for sale, •\s it was taken away in a motor car owned by Joues. It was only after considerable difficulty that they had discovered Hayes, who had since cleared out. The Sergtanf then went into the witness box, ami gave evidence. He saw the order, he said, and was qu:te at a loss to k>.ow who Hayes was. Consequently, ho wrote to Keedwoll. whu ieplied to the effect that the man's name was Albeit Hayes. On March 'Mtli lie summoned young Jones, wiio stated that Hayes was staying at Mrs Nielsen's boardiughcuse. Subsequently the Titter was served with a summons, after which he cleared out.

By Mr Kobiuson : The Greytowu branch of the W I.C.A. was the nearest place to Mastertoa that held a wholesale license. He would not dispute r-iiat between sixty and seventy orders per mouth were received for liqnor He had n< r made complaints to the W.F.C.A. iv regard to the adilre>ses being insufficient, but had '-epeatediy got the constable at Greytown to make enquiries for addresses tliat were insufficient.

Constable Brown stated that ne commenced ro make iuquiries for Haves on March 10th. bur was not able to Stt aiiv information till Herbert Jones •:ave evit'.euce iv the v.-itncss box. Since flieu he had left the district and could not be found

His Worship pointed our at tlr.s .«ta«e. that the question was not oue of whether auy address was furnished, but of whether the address was suih'c- : f-Ut.

Constable Larcomb, of Ureytown, gave evidence ol liaviug enquired from Mr Keedwell as to Hayes' address, but the latter did not know it. He «aw the liquor being taken away in Jones' motor car, which was in the yard of the W.KO.A. at Greytowu alongside the liquor store. Witness renumbered defendant saying that he did not want the "Droppers' " trade and that he would not supply them with any more liquor if he Knew it.

By Mr Kobinsou :He had informed the police iv Masterton that the Jiqunr m question was on the way to Jlastertou. Defendant liad always been willing to render the police every a.-.-isrur.ce. Witue-s had nor told him tiiat he was nor right in supplying Jin nor uule?- the i'uli name and ailf)rei=s were givpu.

By iMiJler. Defendant liad'toul witness on one occasion that lie did uot kuov. to wlioui iio li;u! supplied some liquor. The "Droppers' '' car was well known in Greyto wd. This concluded the evidence for tlia prosecution. His Worship said the question was whether the address given was reasounbie and sufficient and whether the vendor was guilty in not getting further particulars. It appeared to him that Keerlweil iiad acted in a reasonably mauuer in supplying tho information t'«at haci >

Mr Knbinson stated that hia clients were desirous of assisting the policeand of complying with the law. Thsy woulc( t moreover, be prepared to give ;m undertaking to get wore details in ttiture in regard to names aud addresses and not to supply liquor to any person to whom the police objected. The Serjeant should remember tliat defendant was compelled to sell liquor under his license. His Worship stated that lie did not think any intentional bread) had been committed, although there had, no donbt, been a technical breach. It was not a case for a penalty, and the Act was very vague, as it only stated that the person must give Ins name and address.

Defendant was formally convicted and discharged.

A FURTHER CHARGE

A similar charge iv lespect to liquor sold to A. E. Franks was then taken, and- his Worship stated that if the case was on all fours with the previous case Mr Kobinson might enter a plea ot guilty. Mr Hobinsou stated he was quite willing to do so,

Sergt. Miiler stated that Hie case was cMffereut in one or two essentials. He also pointed out that this was the second conviction against defendants. His Worship held that this could not be held to be a second conviction, as it was not in regard to an offence oi. the same nature as the previous one. Mr Robinson held that the information in this case might be looked upon in the nature of a trivial one anri be dismissed.

His Worship imposed a line of 20.s and costs 16s

Mr Keedwell stated that Sergeant Miller wonld not have any cause to further complain of the Greytown branch of the W.F.C. A. again. He desired to give the police every assistance possible.