Symes v Stewart

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, George Richard Symes, a publican, was charged with supplying liquor to John Samuel Lilburn, who was intoxicated, contrary to section 53 of the *Liquor Act 1912* (N.S.W.). The facts established that Symes had sold and delivered a bottle of whisky to Lilburn when he was sober. Lilburn then returned the bottle to Symes for safekeeping, and Symes handed it back to Lilburn later that day when Lilburn was intoxicated. A Police Magistrate dismissed the information, finding that the act of handing back the whisky did not constitute "supplying" within the meaning of the Act.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales had erred in law by determining that the facts were sufficient to support the information, thereby overturning the Magistrate's decision. Specifically, the Court had to consider the meaning of the word "supplies" in section 53 of the *Liquor Act 1912* in the context of liquor that had been previously sold and delivered, then returned for safekeeping. The appellant argued that "supplies" implied providing something that was not already the property of the recipient, and that since Lilburn had already purchased the whisky, its return did not constitute a supply.

The High Court, led by Knox C.J., affirmed the decision of Harvey J. in the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that the purpose of section 53, as part of a group of sections concerning the "supplying of liquor," was to protect vulnerable individuals, including those who are intoxicated, from themselves. Therefore, the word "supplies" should be interpreted liberally. The Court followed the English decision in *Hall-Dalwood v. Emerson*, holding that "supplies" in this context includes the act of furnishing or providing liquor, even if the recipient is the owner, particularly when the liquor was returned for safekeeping and subsequently handed back. Isaacs J. added that the meaning of "supply" is elastic and depends on its context and subject matter.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the Supreme Court's determination that the act of handing back the whisky to Lilburn, despite his prior ownership, constituted a supply within the meaning of section 53 of the *Liquor Act 1912*.