Symes v Stewart [1920] HCA 73

386 HIGH COURT (

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

SYMES . 4 x z : : . APPELLANT; DEFENDANT,

AND

STEWART . naan ' ; : 5 . RESPONDENT. InFoRMANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. Liconsing—Supply of liquor to person in state of intorication—Handing Viquor to 1920. owner thereof—Previous sale and delivery—Liquor handed back to Vicensee for

~e) safe-keeping—Liquor Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 42 of 1912), sec. 53. Sypey, Nov. 16, 17. Sev. 53 of the Liquor Act 1912 (N.S.W.) provides that "if the holder of any

licence for the sale of liquor supplies liquor to any person who is at the time in a state of intoxication," he shall be liable to a certain penalty.

Rich JJ.

Held, that the word "supplies" in that section includes a handing over to the owner where, whilst he was sober, there had been a previous sale to him completed by delivery and a handing back to the licensee for safe-keeping.

Hall-Dalwood v. Emerson, 87 L.J. K.B., 296, followed.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Harvey J.) affirmed.

Appr from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

At Ardlethan, in New South Wales, before a Police Magistrate, an information was heard whereby Peter Stewart charged that on 25th March 1920 George Richard Symes, being the holder of a pub- lican's licence for premises known as the Barellan Hotel at Barellan, did supply on such premises liquor to one John Samuel Lilburn, who was at the time in a state of intoxication. The Magistrate, having dismissed the information, on the application of the informant — stated a case for the determination of the Supreme Court. The case, after setting out the evidence, continued :—" It was proved upon the hearing that the defendant at 7.30 a.m. on 25th March

C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

en sober; that Lilburn gave the whisky back to the defendant safe custody ; that the defendant handed the whisky again to Lilburn at 12.45 p.m., when-Lilburn was in a state of intoxication. It was contended on the part of the defendant that the handing wack of the whisky to Lilburn by the defendant was not supplying quor within the meaning of sec. 53 of the Liquor Act 1912. I upheld the contention, and I determined that the matter herein- before stated was insufficient to support the said information. The ition for the Court is whether my said determination was erro- 8 or not."