19 January, 1956.] THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. 15 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE WINDWARD ISLANDS AND LEEWARD ISLANDS. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS AND LEEWARD ISLANDS. APPPELATE JURISDICTION. Between :— JosErH E. Byron Appellant. and Peart LEwIs Respondent. 1954. No. 2—ANTIGUA. Before:— JACKSON C.J. GORDON J. LEWIS J. (Acting) 1955. December 12, 15. Mr. R. H. Locxuarr for appellant. Mr. S. T. Curistian for respondent. JUDGMENT. This is an appeal from the decision of Date, J., sitting in the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, quashing a conviction of the respondent by the Acting Magistrate of District “A”, Antigua, ona charge of keeping intoxicating liquor for sale by retail without being duly licensed to sell the same. Section 23 of the Licensing Act (No. 4 of 1879), as amended by section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1879, Amendment Ordinance, 1921, in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:— “‘ Any person who sells or offers for sale or keeps or exposes for sale wholesale or by retail any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the sume shall be liable to the following penalties:— (1) For the first offence he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month.” The facts, as found by the learned Magistrate were, briefly, that on the 3rd April 1954 the respondent was living with her husband in a house at Cedar Grove. On that day the house was searched by the police who found concealed under a mattress in the bedroom 12 bottles of rum, and in the sitting room a bottle of rum, two empty pint bottl¢s smelling of rum, and two tins containing eleven shillings and two pence. On the police seizing these things the respondent said “ All you give me my money— me have to sell ruin till I dead. Ah dat me ah live by—if all you carry them away before the night out more have to come’’ or words to that effect. The respondent and her hushand were both charged and were tried together. Each was convicted and fined $45 and in default of payment ordered to be imprisoned with hard labour tor two months; one month was allowed for payment of the fines. Against her conviction the respondent appealed, and at the hearing of the appeal it was urged on her behalf that she could not lawfully be convicted of keeping liquor for sale on premises occupied by her husband and herself when her husband was also convicted. On this point Date, J., held that in view of the fact that the evidence accepted by the Magistrate tended to show that the appellant was the one actively concerned in the business of keeping the rum for sale, and that there was no evidence that the respondent had acted under the coercion of her husband it was open to the learned Magistrate to convict the respondent. At the hearing of the appeal, however, the Acting Crown Attorney drew attention to two previous decisions of the Supreme Court (in its Appellate Jurisdiction) in Christian v. Hill (Leeward Islands Gazette No. 33 of 18th March 1947 at page 97) and Osborne v. Sulcott (Leeward Islands Gazette No. 40 of 1th April 1947, at page 121) in both of which Cools-Lartigue, J., held that the Magistrate had no power to order imprisonment in default of payment of a fine imposed in respect of an offence under section 23 of the Licensing Act, without first issuing a warrant of distress under section 61 of the Act. Date, J., held that he was bound by these decisions ‘and accordingly quashed the conviction.