LIABILITY OF LICENSEES

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27593, 25 February 1955, Page 12

LIABILITY OF LICENSEES

BREACHES BY STAFF DURING ABSENCE

CASE TO BE STATED FOR SUPREME COURT

The question whether a licensee who has obtained permission from a licensing committee l for leave of absence and has nominated a xpanager to manage, superintend, and conduct his premises is vicariously liable for offences committed by his servants in his absence, will be referred to the Supreme Court for decision on a case stalled.

On the suggestion of Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr W. F. Brown agreed to this course to decide a charge against Norman James Wallace, licensee of the Heathcote Arms Hotel, for whom he appeared. Wallace pleaded not guilty to a charge that on January 21 he sold liquor after hours. Sergeant R. M. Schwass said that as a result of a fatal motor-cycle accident, inquiries had been made about the obtaining of liquor. The barman at the hotel frankly admitted that he had supplied liquor to a party after hours on January 21. The party had been there for a short time. Wallace had been granted permission for leave of absence for four weeks from January 3. A manager, nominated by Wallace, was in charge of the hotel. Arthur Stanley Anderson, a barman (Mr Brown) was later fined £5 on a charge that being a person other than the licensee, he supplied liquor after hours.

The only question was whether Wallace was liable for the action of Anderson. Wallace had made application to the Licensing Committee to protect himself. The manager could be -charged that, as a person other than the licensee, he supplied liquor after hours, said Mr Brown. The Magistrate said that in his opinion a licensee could not divest himself of responsibility in that manner and did remain vicariously liable. The matter was not entirely covered by authority. The lower court could d fu lde xv ever Z Question in the matter that £ r which the opinion of the Supreme Court was sought.