CONDUCT OF HOTEL

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 70, 16 December 1937, Page 16

CONDUCT OF HOTEL

Licensing Committee Holds

Inquiry

“WARNING TO PUBLICANS”

"This ease should-act as a warning that, if publicans fail to discharge their responsibilities and observe the law, this committee will not hesitate to exercise the powers conferred on it by section 10-1 of the Licensing Act,” said Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., chairman of the Wellington Licensing Committee, at the end of an inquiry yesterday into the conduct of Barrett’s Hotel.

The inquiry was held as the result of allegations made by the police at the recent quarterly meeting of the committee, when William Noad applied to have the licence of the hotel permanently transferred from himself to Robert Michael Cox. It was stated that liquor had been sold after hours and that a look-out man had been placed in a position to give warning of the approach of the police, so that no incriminating evidence would be found on their arrival. The committee stated then that, if the charges were proved, it would have to consider terminating the licence under section 104 of the Act. After the committee had heard evidence ou both sides yesterday, a major* ity found that the charge had been established, but decided not to cancel Cox’s licence. Inspector ,1. Sweeney appeared for the police and the Hon. W. Perry, M.L.C., for the licensee. Committee’s Duty. Giving judgment, Mr. Luxford said that the case was important. “Mr. Perry states that he has never known section 104 to be invoked before, but I note that a similar proceeding is about to be heard before the Rotorua Licensing Committee,” be said. “A licensing committee’s duty is to see that premises are not conducted improperly ; the Legislature has seen fit to empower xt committee to cancel a licence at any quarterly meeting if there is improper conduct. These words ‘improper conduct’ are very wide and the committee is sole judge of what amounts to misconduct. Misconduct need not necessarily involve a breach of the penal provisions of the Licensing Act before a committee can act under the powers conferred by section 104. In our opinion our function is limited to inquiring into complaints properly brought before us after the licensee hag had due notice of what he has to meet. A highly placed police officer is the inspector of licensed premises and a duty devolves upon him to bring matters of complaint before the committee for investigation. That is necessary in the public interest and in fairness to the licensee.” After giving the committee’s decision Mr. Luxford pointed out that the privileges of a licence —very valuable from a monetary point of view—carried important responsibilities, and none more Important than the proper conduct of the business of a publican. Constables gave evidence that there was almost invariably a man employed by the hotel standing at the street entrance after closing hours. When the police approached he went inside. "Soon after the present licensee took charge I managed to get down to the door of the hotel before the man saw me,” said Sergeant McKie. “He seemed surprised when he saw me. He attempted to go inside and then changed his mind and stood still. I asked him what he was doing there and he said he was a member of the staff. 1 asked him if he was keeping a look out; he said that he was not and that he was there for the purpose of preventing people other than guests from gaining admission.” Witness added that there was a • button in the office, which operated a bell or buzzer upstairs. To Mr. Perry witness said that when he mentioned the bell or buzzer he was speaking of events prior to Mr. Cox’s taking over. He had* no knowledge of it since then. To Mr. Luxford he said that he had not, been in the office since Mr. Cox was the licensee. 1 Licence in Danger. “The police are making a serious charge against the licensee which may result in his losing his licence, and it strikes me as extraordinary if no inspection was made to see if the bell was still there,” remarked Mr. Luxford. “The whole tenor of your evidence is that this man stands at the door watching for the police, and if he sees them goes and gives a signal to someoue in the office, who rings a I bell to warn those upstairs to put I things in order. What I want to know I is whether you have not made an in- I spection to see if there is a bell?” I Witness: 1 haven't. I

Mr. Luxford: bo you know if an inspection Inis been made?—"No, 1 don't."

Constable .Johnston said that on a number of occasions be bad entered the hotel close behind the porter or scout and bad seen him signal by a nod to the woman attendant in the oilice. He had seen her on every occasion come forward immediately to the desk and place tier hand under il. lie bad not made any inspection, but presumed that she was pressing a bell. On October 13, with a not her constable, he visited the hotel in plain clothes, Seageant Munro and another constable in uniform following about a minute and a half later. When he stepped into the corridor off the lounge upstairs he heard a bell ring in the housebar and someone shout, “Outside, quick.” He saw several men rush down the corridor. 'There were prosecutions as a result of the visit. Witness also described another visit to the hotel, when a number of men rushed out of the house-bar and lie intercepted Jive, four of whom were prosecuted. Sergeant Munro also described several raids on the hotel, including one m which he got in a back window, from which a. man had been attempting to escape, and found about six men in a room. On another occasion when the man on the door, named Carnegie, saw him coming he rushed inside and witness heard him calling: “Get out, get out this way.” He saw him pushing men along the corridor from the house-bar, saying “This way, this way, quick.” After this occasion Carnegie was prosecuted for obstructing him in the execution of his duty. People in Loungs.

“Did you complain to Mrs. Cox about people remaining in, the lounge after having had dinner at the hotel?” asked Mr. Perry. Witness: 1 told her'that it was not lawful for people to have a meal and remain as long as they pleased. Mr. Luxford: What’s unlawful in

their sitting in the louuge reading? Mr. Perry: Di'd you tell her that they should not be there after 8 o’clock?— “I said ‘indefinitely.’ ” Did you think that the law was that they should be out of the lounge by. 8 o'clock? Mr. Luxford:. You needn’t be shy about making a mistake about the licensing laws! Witness insisted that he had said “indefinitely.” Mr. Perry: Mrs. Cox complained that you were harassing her guests by comiug through the lounge as often as you did?—“She complained to the inspector.” But before that? —“She told me that the guests did not like it.’’ She complained that you were harassing the guests and disorganising the business by your frequent visits to the lounge after 8 o’clock?—“Probably.” Witness denied that he had visited the hotel 10 times in 13 days or that he had visited it more than any other hotel on his beat. Mr. Perry: Would it be right for me to say that there is some feeling between you and Mrs. Cox? Witness: Not so far as I’m concerned. Witness said that he had interviewed Cox and informed him that a man had told him that he (Cox) had put grease at the side of the hotel “so that Sergeant Munro would break his neck.” Cox- had strenuously denied that he had had anything to do with the grease, and stated that it was there before he took charge. The licensee, in evidence, said that he employed a porter to stand at the entrance of the hotel to keep out people who were not guests. It had been held, be eaid, that a hotel was being kept open if the house-bar was open and there was no one on the door to see that unauthorised people did not gain admission. Mr. Luxford said that this was so. Licensees, he added, were certainly up against a difficulty in keeping out people who were not entitled to admission. The house-bar was the trouble. Cox denied that he had employed it man to watch for the police and that there was any warning bell. Inspector Sweeney: Do you say that there was no bell when you went there? Witness: There was a bell, but it has been dismantled. When? —“The first or second night I was there.” Mr. Perry said that the section under which the inquiry wife being held was the most drastic in the Act. He had never seen it invoked before. Mr. Luxford: I should call it the most effective—in fact, the only effective section of the Act.

The permanent transfer of the licence was granted after the committee’s decision had been given.