Licensing Breaches Alleged In Conduct Of Tourist House

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27665, 23 May 1955, Page 12

Licensing Breaches Alleged In Conduct Of Tourist House

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND. May 21. } What is believed to be the first case in New Zealand involving al- - ieged breaches of the licensing laws • t>n tourist houses came before Mr W. S. Spence, S.M., in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court. John Sylvester Pender, licensee of the Mansion House at Kawau Island,

denied charges of keeping the premises . open for the sale of liquor, and selling • liquor, when the premises were required to be closed. He admitted a - charge of permitting Oscar Epsom * to manage the premises during his » absence for a ‘ period longer than ’ 14 days, without the previous consent • of the Rodney Licensing Committee. ‘ James Alexander Donaldson, a > steward, pleaded not guilty to supplying beer to Graham Eric Fincham when the latter was not lawfully entitled to be supplied. Allan Robert Elliott Horsfall, managing director, and owner of the premises, was charged with aiding • and assisting Donaldson in the com- ’ mission of an offence, and also, as * the person having control of a dance ? icld in a hall at the Mansion House. ( with permitting intoxicating liquor ’ COnSUme<i - He denied both Constable E. Cater, of the special r duty section, said that on Good Friday * light he and Constable G. E. Fincham bought four bottles of beer for Ils from a slide servery after entering -** interior courtyard through an alley. They then sat on some beer irates in the courtyard, and saw other men making similar purchases. Sergeant H. Richardson said that, when he entered the dance hall at the Mansion House the band struck up “Policeman’s Holiday.” There were 78 persons present. Horsfall told him

15 of them were not guests. The function was well conducted, but most of the tables bore glasses of liquor. Sergeant Richardson read a statement made by Pender, in which he said that, in some periods of the year, at least 42 extra staff were required, so that no one staff member could know all the others. It had been the practice to serve liquor to staff who were out of uniform and off duty, for consumption in their own quarters. However, the stewards had no authority to serve strangers. The terms attached to the tourist house licence, said the statement, permitted dancing on the premises, and liquor was also served. Outsiders could take part in the function, which included dinner and a substantial supper, and could order liquor. For this privilige. tickets were available at 5s each. However, he (Pender) had not intended this as a subterfuge to by-pass the licensing provisions. So far as the charges a gainst Pender were concerned, it war noteworthy that the times of closing for premises with a tourist house licence were not specified, said his counsel, Mr W. White. The regulations allowed liquor to be served not only to a lodger or staff member, but also to any person taking a meal. Thus the qualifications related to persons, not to times.

Under those terms, counsel submitted, tourist houses could sell liquor at all hours, 365 days a year. The Magistrate said it had not been proved that Horsfall had permitted unauthorised persons to consume liquor where the “dine-and-dance” function was being held, so that charge must be dismissed. Decision was reserved on the other counts against the three defendants.