Soup Not “Substantial Meal” Under Liquor Act

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31151, 30 August 1966, Page 9

Soup Not “Substantial Meal” Under Liquor Act

Having a bowl of soup was not “actually partaking of a substantial meal” and could not be used as a pretext for drinking liquor at a hotel “wine and dine” for one hour and a half outside the normal licensing hours, Mr K. H. J. Headifen, S.M., said in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

He convicted John Joseph Hill, a barman-steward, on a charge that, being a person other than the licensee or manager of the Imperial Hotel, he supplied liquor to Arnold Skilling when he was not authorised to do so. Hill, who pleaded not guilty, was fined £5. He was represented by Mr P. G. S. Penlington.

Sergeant A. G. Adcock said at 10 p.m. on June 30 he visited the Imperial Hotel in Barbadoes street with Constable G. E. Doyle. He went into the room used as a “wine and dine,” and three persons were present. One was Arnold Skilling, who had an almost full jug of beer in front of him.

Sergeant Adcock said he told Hill, who was the bar-man-steward on duty, that Skilling had said that he had only had some savouries since he arrived at the hotel and that he admitted having had several jugs of beer. Skilling’s name was not in the book used to list the names of persons who had meals at the hotel. Skilling had been convicted in the Magistrate’s Court of consuming liquor after hours.

To Mr Penlington Sergeant Adcock agreed that a substantial meal was provided at the “wine and dine,” and that there was no obligation for the licensee to keep a book listing the name of persons who had a meal at the hotel. Sergeant Adcock said that Skilling was later arrested by another policeman on a charge of being drunk in charge of a bicycle. Constable Doyle said that the manager of the hotel, Walter Edward Jehu Davie, had said that Skilling had had a bowl of soup and as far as he was concerned that was a meal as Skilling did not want anything else. Mr Penlington said that the

defence turned on whether the liquor was served as part of a meal. He submitted that was so when the police arrived, as Skilling had not finished having the meal which he had paid for. Hill said that Skilling came to the hotel about 8.30 p.m. and paid for a full meal at the “wine and dine.” He had a bowl of soup and said he would order the rest of the meal later. Skilling was served with two jugs of beer and he left it to Skilling to say when be wanted to be served with the meal.

The Magistrate said that the whole question turned on whether when the police arrived at the hotel the liquor Skilling had in front of him was being consumed as part of a “substantial meal.” Section 60C of the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962, which dealt with one of the conditions under which liquor could be sold to a person, said: “To any person actually partaking of a substantial meal in any room or place, other than a bar, used for dining whether generally or on that occasion, for the consumption by that person as part of the meal, at any time between the hours of 9 o’clock in the morning and 11.30 o'clock at night on any day.” The act did not mean that a person must continuously

eat during the time he was in the hotel or be eating when the police arrived, the Magistrate said. The courses could be spread over some time, but some restriction had to be placed; otherwise the act would be meaningless. The words meant that the meal had to be consumed within a reasonable period and manner, and it had to be a substantial meal. A bowl of soup was not a substantial meal, and there was no evidence before the court that Skilling was going to have the rest of the meal. The “wine and dine” was about to be closed.

Skilling was not permitted to go into the hotel, have a bowl of soup and then sit there all night consuming liquor on the pretext of ordering the rest of the meal at some future time. “I hold that the licensee was not authorised to supply liquor to Skilling at 10 p.m. on June 30, so Hill must be convicted,” said the Magistrate.

Davie was ordered to pay costs only on a charge of supplying liquor to Skilling when he was not authorised to do so. “It appears that you have been let down rather badly by your steward,” the Magistrate said to Davie.