Publican Fined: Sequel To Firm’s Cocktail Party

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29233, 17 June 1960, Page 11

Publican Fined: Sequel To Firm’s Cocktail Party

(Aew Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, June 16. The licensee of the Royal Oak Hotel, Leonard Bain Smith, was today fined £7 10s and costs for selling liquor after hours during a cocktail party arranged at the hotel by 1.C.1. (N.Z.), Ltd., in March. 1116 fine was imposed in a reserved decision by Mr A. W. Yortt, S.M., released today. Smith was charged with keeping open the licensed premises when they were directed by .the Licensing Act to be closed, and with selling liquor when the hotel should have been closed. Smith’s wife, Vera Smith, who was in charge of the hotel while her husband was away in Napier, was charged with selling liquor to those not entitled to be supplied. She was convicted and discharged. Mr J. D. Murray prosecuted and Mr W. E. Leicester, with him Mr A. D. Patterson, appeared for Smith.

‘‘This is the type of function which requires only a permit to make it legal and I can see no reason why one should not have been granted,” the Magistrate said. “The licensee has obtained many permits before and, in fact, had been warned for failing to obtain a permit for one of this company’s parties on a previous occasion.

“Unless he particularly desired to test the law, he was unwise not to have obtained one in this instance.”

The Magistrate said 1.C.1. proposed holding a cocktail party at the Royal Oak on March 15. Five days earlier, an 1.C.1. representative, a Mr Bailey, made arrangements for the party. Smith told Bailey it was too late to get the necessary permit, but that if a director or representative of the company was a lodger for the night of the party this would meet the legal requirement as those attending the party would then be the guests of the lodger. Status of Lodger

The Magistrate said: ‘‘The act contained no definition of ‘lodger’, but for the defendants in this instance to secure the protection of the section of the act, I must be satisfied, firstly, that when

the liquor was supplied, Malycon (the lodger) was really a lodger living or staying in the licensed premises, and. secondly, that the liquor was supplied to his guests for consumption on the licensed premises without charge and by way of hospitality, the burden of proof being on them. “Malycon did not need accommodation as a visitor to Wellington. He presented himself at the hotel and went through the performance of booking in and obtaining the key, not because he required accommodation, but for the sole purpose of surrounding his company’s party with the cloak of legality. “This section of the act. in my view, is intended to cover the case of a genuine lodger wishing to extend hospitality to his guests during his stay at a hotel It was not meant to include the artificial situation created here." Invitation to Guests

The Magistrate said the party was held at the instigation of 1.C.1. and formal written invitations were sent out by the manag-ing-director. These invitations were headed with the trade mark of 1.C.1., though it was accepted that some guests were invited by the lodger. “It is likely, in my view of these formal invitations, that most of them were invited by the manag-ing-director.

“Though he (the lodger) considered all persons present to be his guests, he admitted he had not invited them all and did not know how many were present. He did not know how much the party would cost but that ‘Mr Bailey of our company arranges the financial side'.

“Though Malycon paid for the party, he was reimbursed by the company." The Magistrate said he could not accept the argument that, having booked Malycon in at the hotel, the licensee was thereupon entitled to assume without further inquiry that the guests were all his.

“I might add that I do not hold the company or its directors to blame for what has happened. The company had every right to

hold this function subject to compliance with certain legal requirements for which the licensee was responsible,” the Magistrate said.