DRINKS AT DIXIELAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 128, 2 June 1927, Page 9

DRINKS AT DIXIELAND.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

A SYSTEMATIC PRACTICE.

"SPOT" GLASSES FOR GUESTS' LIQUOR. By the judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir Charles Skerrett) in the Supreme Court to-day, the appeal of Dr. Rayner, managing director oi" Dixieland, Point chevalier, against a conviction for alicwing liquor to be consumed in the cabaret, was dismissed. His Honor held ihat although Dr. Rayner was not present on tne night releired to in the charge—May 4, I'j2(i—he had acquiesced in, consented to, or impliedly authorised the kind of business which was conducted in the cabaret. The appeal would be dismissed, with £7 7/ costs and tha usual disbursements.

Reviewing the case, his Honor said on May 4 there was held a "-Charity Ball," which was attended by a large number of guests. The cabaret supplied supper and such food as the guests required, and it was not disputed that there was intoxicating liquor in substantial quantities openly displayed on most of the tables and drunk "during the dance. The liquor was brought into the cabaret by the guests. The glasses used for its consumption was supplied by the cabaret; and waiters employed by the cabaret asked the guests if they wanted "spot" glasses, meaning glasses out of which they could consume liquors which they had, brought with them. From the evidence it was clear that guests consumed in the cabaret substantial quantities of liquor.

Not An Isolated Instance,

In his Honor's opinion the evidence given by Dr. Rayner was based on the concession that what had happened on the night of the raid was part of the system en which the business was conducted. His evidence did not relate to the night in question, nor did he suggest that what had happened was unusual, or an isolated occurrence. It was clear that if a person taking part in the management and control of a cabaret knew that its system of carrying on business involved the consumption of liquor in breach of the law, he was guilty of an offence if he acquiesced, or impliedly authorised <he continuance of the practice, even though he might not be on the premises at the time of the commission of the particular offence.

Dr. Rayner had not denied that he knew of the system under which liquor was consumed by guests, nor did he assert that the system carried on against the desire of his fellow directors. The plain inference was that the practice of allowing liquor to be consumed on the premises was carried on systematically, and the inference was that the directors and management permitted and authorised this method of conducting business.