SALE OF TOBACCO IN HOTELS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 73, 27 March 1895, Page 5

SALE OF TOBACCO IN HOTELS.

A LEGAL OPINION.

{by thlecbaph.— press association.)

Welusotox, Tuesday. The opinion of Mr W. B. Edwards, the well-known solicitor, has been take- on the question whether tbe sale of* tobacco, cigars, etc., by hotelkeepers brings tbem within the provisions of the Shops and Shop Assistants Acb, and a summary is published by the " Post." He thinks bbc word " shop " as defined by the Act is sufficiently wide to include every hotel, whether tobacco is sold or nob, as _rated water and other things, not covered by the license, are necessarily sold; that the Bale of .-.rated water and food is incidental to the business of an eabing-honse. Ib ia nob, in Mr Edwards' opinion, a tenable contention that the sale is as a licensed victualler. Licensed victuallers are nob mentioned in the Shops and Shops Assistants Acb, and ib is plain they were not intended to be affected by bhab Acb. Every hotelkeoper bas been in the habit of selling cigars, etc., and there is nothing in the Acb to Bhow bhat ib was intended to interfere with this being done. " The conclusion to which I have come," says Mr Edwards, "is, therefore, that the sale of tobacco and cigars carried on by licensed victuallers does nob make them subject to the provisions of the Shops and Shop Assistants Act of 1894. Moreover, even if the sale of tobacco, etc., rendered an hotel a shop within the meaning of the Acb, ib would seem to be compliance with the law if the hotelkoeper neither sold nor exposes for sale tobacco, etc., on the statutory half-holidays, and ib would nob be necessary that ho should close his premises on bhat day." The case of Taßsell v. Ovenden, 2, Q.8.D., 383, is quoted as one in poinb, as showing bhat if tobacco, etc., were shut up and not exposed for sale on statutory half-holidays, ib would nob be necessary to chub up the house. In any case; a fine under the Shops and Shop Assistants Acb would be the only punishment, and a conviction would not affecb the license. In conclusion, Mr Edwards says :—•' I am, however, pretty confident bhab ib would be held by the Supreme Court thab the sale of tobacco, etc., by hotelkeepers bas not been in any way affected by the legislation of 1894."