HOTEL "LODGERS."

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 302, 22 December 1933, Page 3

HOTEL "LODGERS."

LEGAL POSITION.

, MEN IN BAR AFTER DINNER. NINE DEFENDANTS EINED. ' (From Our Own Correspondent.) MORRINSVILLE, Thursday. The question of what is a lodger at an hotel was discussed by Mr. P. W. Platts, S.M., in the course of a lengthy '■ reserved judgment delivered in'" the ■ Magistrate's Court at Morrinsville today on cases heard at the recent siti ting of the Court, when the licensee and i barman of the Morrinsville Hotel and several residents were prosecuted by the , police for alleged breaches of the , Licensing Act. The magistrate held that four of the five men who pleaded not guilty to charges of being on licensed premises • after closing hours had no lawful excuse for being there, and imposed fines. Three • others who had pleaded guilty were also ; fined. The licensee, Harold Jasper Porti man, was fined £2 on each of two ' charges, and the barman, H. Stanyer, was fined £3 on each of two charges. Excuses Not Accepted. Referring to charges against Gustavus ■ Brooks, Henry John Lingard, Jack Ellis and Richard Hornsey of being illegally on licensed premises, the magistrate said that evidence showed that all were in the bar when Constable -Heeps called at the hotel on the evening of November 30. The defence was that Ellis and Hornsey had gone into the bar to pay for their dinner, that Brooks was a boarder and had "shouted" for Ellis and Hornsey, that Brooks had also asked Lingard to have a drink with him, and that Lingard was a boarder. It was stated that Lingard stayed at the hotel that and the following nights, while Brooks slept there that night and for three other nights. "I am satisfied," added the magistrate, "that when the drinks were supplied Brooks was not, in the precise words of the Licensing Act, 'really a boarder living or staying in licensed premises.' The claim that Lingard was a boarder has still weaker foundation. I am satisfied that Ellis and Hornsey spoke the truth when they informed the constable who found them in the bar that they were having a drink after their dinner and before going home. The excuse made before tho Court that they had gone into the bar to pay for their meals is feeble. They stated that they had had two drinks with dinner and had paid the waitress for these drinks. They could have paid her for thendinner also." As to the defence that Brooks, a boarder, had "shouted" for all the men found in the bar by the constable, even if it had been shown that Brooks was a boarder at the time the drinks were supplied, and if the magistrate could accept the evidence that he did "shout" for these persons, it would not make them bona-h'de guests whom Brooks was entitled to entertain after closing hours. Some were, Brooks had admitted, scarcely acquaintances. None came there, by hie invitation. Fines Imposed. "I find," said the magistrate, "that Ellis, Hornsey, Brooks and Lingard, when the drinks were supplied, were unlawfully on the premises. They will be convicted and fined as follows: Brooks and Lingard, 40/ each and costs; Ellis and Hornsey, 30/ each and costs." A similar charge against Gordon Carter, a taxi driver, who entered the bar just before tho police arrived in order to induce his fares, Ellis and Hornsey, to come out, was dismissed. Three men who had pleaded guilty at the first sitting of the Court were each fined 20/ and costs.