Harracksingh v Roberts

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Wooding, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 12 March 1963
• Neutral Citation: TT 1963 CA 10
• Docket Number: No. 129 of 1962
• Date: 12 March 1963

Court of Appeal

Wooding C.J, McShine, J.A.; Hyatali J.A

No. 129 of 1962

Harracksingh

and

Roberts

Appearances:

Mr. E.P. Bruyning appeared for the appellant.

The Solicitor General appeared for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Offence under the Liquor Ordinance No. 27 of 1955 — Whether liquid seized was rum

Facts: Appellant convicted of selling certain spirits without being duly authorized by licence under the Liquor Ordinance No. 27 of 1955. On appeal argued that the contents of the bottle were not sufficiently proved to be rum and therefore, were not sufficiently proved to be intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the Ordinance

Held: There was abundant evidence that the contents of the bottle was “intoxicating liquor” within the meaning of that term as defined by the Ordinance. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Wooding, C.J.

1 In this case the appellant was convicted of the offence of selling certain sprits, to wit, rum, without being duly authorised by licence under the Ordinance relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor. The incident occurred at Mc Inroy Street, Curepe, on 8th April, 1961. First of all, it has been argued that the contents of the bottle which was alleged to have been handed over by the appellant to the man Kanhai who was the alleged purchaser of the rum were not sufficiently proved to he rum and, therefore, were not sufficiently proved to be intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the Liquor Ordinance, No.27 of 1955. By the Ordinance intoxicating liquor is defined to mean, among other things, “spirits” is defined as including any liquor sold as or as containing rum.

2 The evidence is that Kanhai went and called for a nip of rum, that he was handed this bottle with its contents and, therefore, that would be sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of spirits. Actually, the evidence goes further because the Inspector who was in charge of the investigation that evening tested the contents himself and, with his experience of 13 years of rum drinking behind him, said it tasted like rum. Further, he says he asked the appellant to taste it and the appellant said he was not tasting it because he knew it was rum. With all that evidence before the magistrate, assuming that he believed the case for the prosecution, it is our view that there was abundant evidence that the contents of the bottle were “intoxicating liquor” within the meaning of that term as...