SELLING LIQUOR TO CONGDON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 45, Issue 13750, 31 January 1919, Page 5

SELLING LIQUOR TO CONGDON.

In this case the defendant is charged with soiling liquor intended to be taken to Masterton to Alfred Gongdon, and that the order for same does nor state the address and occupation of th. 1 purchaser. The facts are not in dispute. Gongdon gave an order for liquor and attached his signature where there is a line for "name of person giving order.' , This is followed by his occupation and address. Then follow two lines: "For (name of person)," "Occupation ,7 which are blank—then ■'Taken by 'same as above.' '' Congdon was the purchaser of the liquor. The order commences, "Please supply the following liquor and charge same to me," and if signed by Alf. Congdon, iso that the order is signed by the purchaser, and although it does not say whom the liquor is for, I think it a fair assumption that it is for the purchaser if there is no other name on the order form. The order form produced is in substantial compliance with the Act, and the information will therefore be dismissed. A FIFTH CHAEGE DISMISSED. In this case the defendant is caarged with failing to furnish to the Clerk lof this Court a statement in writ ; ng of I certain liquor sold to one Congdoa. The ' liquor was sold about midday or. 13th December. Notice of the fact was posted before 9 a.m. on the following day, if I am to believe the evidence of the defendant and his witness. The envelope bears the Carterton postmark iof the 17th, and was received in MasI terton the same day. It is not imposi sib!e that the notice was held up in the J Gar terton post office for two or thre? j days, and therefore I accept defend- | ant's statement that it was posted bej fore 9 a.m. on 14th Dccmber. Mails ', close at the nearest post box to de■fendant's place of business at '.) .''.'in. nnd 4 p.m. daily. The defendant could have posted the notice in t'.iue to catch the 4 p.m. mail on the He did not do so, but posted next morning. ! Although the sale and giving notice to I the Clerk of the Court should be aa nearjly as may be contemporaneous, I do not i think it would be reasonable to lay ! down a hard and fast rule that the lie- ; ensee must post his notice by the first mail leaving after the sale. If all notices are sent by the first mail leaving the place on the day succeeding that on which the sale is made, I think ihere ; has been a substantial compliance with ■ the Act . The information will no dis j missed.