SUPREME COURT APPEAL BY LICENSEE OF HOTEL DISMISSED

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27639, 21 April 1955, Page 3

SUPREME COURT APPEAL BY LICENSEE OF HOTEL DISMISSED

An appeal against his conviction on charges of exposing liquor, opening the premises and selling liquor after hours, made by a hotel licensee, was dismissed in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice McGregor. Richard Henry Bates, licensee of the Mandeville Hotel, Kaiapoi, was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court, Rangiora, on December 8, last year, on all three charges, and fined a total of £25. Mr B. McClelland appeared for Bates and the Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) for the Crown. Mr Brown said that on September 25, last year, two constables visited the Mandeville Hotel at 9.15 p.m. The door was opened by the licensee, who told the constables that ' Reg” (Mr R. P. Chappell), a permanent boarder, had a few friends in. About 23 persons were found in the private bar, said Mr Brown. As they entered the bar the licensee called out: “These are your guests, aren’t they, Reg?” and Mr Chappell replied that they were. The police were told it was Chappell’s birthday and he was entertaining some friends. Only Chappell had paid for the drinks. Two of those found in the bar—a Mr Wilson and a Miss Wilson—said they intended to stay the night but their names were not in the guest book, said Mr Brown. Commenting on Mr Brown’s opening, his Honour said it was unusual in his experience for a Magistrate to convict on all three charges arismg out of the same set of circum-

stances. One of the charges would usually be withdrawn when a conviction was entered on the other charges. When a licensee was convicted for selling the charges' of opening and exposing were usually withdrawn. Evidence was given along the lines indicated by Mr Brown by Constaole J. J. Highsted and Constable A. E. V. Yaxley. Chappell, a bona fide lodger at the hotel, had decided to invite a few people in for drinks about 9 o’clock before going to a party at a private house, said Mr McClelland. Shortly before 9 o’clock three cars drew up at the hotel and the passengers were taken into the lounge. Chappell came in and they all went into the bar where Chappell paid for three rounds of drinks. “Bates will say that when he escorted the constables into the bar he said then, ‘Who has paid for all the drinks?’ and Chappell said, ‘Yes, it’s me’,” said Mr McClelland. Mr McClelland called Bates, Chappell and Peter Curtis, who was one of the men found in the bar. “I am entirely unconvinced by the evidence for the appellant,” said his Honour. “Most of the persons in the hotel had arrived before the person alleged to be the host. I am not satisfied that the majority of those persons were bona fide guests of the lodger. ‘‘The evidence for the appellant is most fantastic. The Court has been told that these persons entered the bar after 9 o’clock some five or six minutes before the police arrived, and that they had time to drink three drinks. “That may have been possible, but the licensee would have had to serve 69 drinks in that time, and I don’t accept that evidence.’’ He accepted the constables’ evidence that the licensee had said: “These are all your guests, aren’t they Reg?’’ This could only bring one answer, and it indicated the licensee’s state of mind. “I hold that the Magistrate was correct in fact and in law,”

In his view it was a matter of discretion whether a conviction on each of the three charges or on one only should be entered, said his Honour. He did not consider £25 would have been an excessive penalty for selling liquor after hours, and he could not see any reason to upset the Magistrate’s decision to convict on all charges.