LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 526, 23 August 1900, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

The Act mentioned in the above case provides that no person shall be entitled to maintain any cause of action or suit, or recover either in law or in equity any sum of money or debt for, or on account of spiritous liquors, unless such debt shall have been really bona fide contracted at one time to the amount of 20s or upwards.

Henry John Little, licensee of the Fitzroy Hotel, was fined £1 and costs for receiving a gold ring as a pledge for liquor. For the defence Mr Campbell submitted that the defendant was unaware that he was committing a breach of any section of the Licensing Act, and that this was the first time Mr Little had appeared to answer any charge of a breach of the Act. Sub-Inspector Wilson also stated in reply to a question from the Bench that he was satisfied that the house was well conducted.

William Henry Carlyle was charged with, on July 18, having entered the licensed premises of the Wellington Hotel during the currency of a prohibition order against him; Accused said he had not then received the order against him He admitted having been served with a drink in the hotel, but it was not till a day or two after that he was made aware that a prohibition order had been issued against him. He was fined 10s and costs.

Francis Mulholland was charged with having unlawfully sold liquor on Sunday, July 29 on his licensed premises, known as the Bower Hotel, situated at Burwood, the person to whom the liquor was sold not being a bona fide traveller or lodger in the Bower Hotel. Inspector Ellison conducted the case for the Police, and Mr Kippenberger appeared for the defendant. Constable Flewellen stated that he entered the Bower Hotel at 11 a.m. on July 29 and saw Mulholland standing in the hall. Witness heard voices of men in a room and opened the door and entered it. There were three men there, named Samuel Sinclair, John Kerr, and William Oakley, and two pint measures which had contained beer, one being rather over half full. Samuel Sinclair stated that he was in a room in the Bower Hotel when Constable Flewellen entered He had gone into the hotel in the company of John Kerr and William Oakley.. They sat in a room, and were not served with drink. He saw the pint, measures there, but they had been left there the previous evening. Witness had gone to the hotel to see Mulholland about some account books. William Oakley stated that he had gotie to the hotel for the purpose of buying some bricks which were in an adjoining right-of-way. He had not been served with drink, and had seen no drink served. John Kerr said he had gone to the hotel to see a commercial traveller, and otherwise gave similar evidence to the previous witness. The Magistrate said the case must fall to the ground, as there was not sufficient evidence against the defendant. The case would be dismissed. A very peculiar and unusual point cropped up during the hearing of an action brought by the landlady of the “ George and Dragon,” Waldegrave, Berkshire, against a Mr Mackenzie, to recover an amount of £47 18s 2d. Mr Mackenzie’s indebtedness was for “ hire ot carriages, goods supplied, and hotel accommodation,” of which £7 Is 8d represented the legally liable portion. The balance of £4O 17s was for whisky and sodas which counsel submitted would be liquidated by the payment of £1 sterling. So far as the sale of whisky and soda was concerned, he submitted that if a man went into a public house and asked for sixpennyworth of whisky, and then said, ” Will you kindly give me a sixpenny bottle of soda ?” the publican might recover for the soda, as it would have been a separate contract. But, on the other hand, if a man asked for a whisky and soda, and the two were handed to him in the ordinary way, then, he submitted, the plaintiff could not recover, and that was what happened in this case. This ingenious argument was successfully refuted by the plaintiff's council, who contended that in a claim for whiskies and sodas, where Section 12 of t.l e Tippling Act, of 1751, was pleaded, the Act would apply as to the whiskies, but it would not so apply to the sodas if the two articles could be apportioned. The amount charged for whisky was £24 4s Bd, whilst the amount charged for mineral waters, including some lemon squashes, was £l6 12s 2d. The learned judge saw the matter in the same light, and decided that though the whisky was exempt, the debt for soda was recoverable, «nd he gave judgment for the plaintiff for £l6 with costs