LIQUOR IN RESTAURANTS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 92, 19 April 1921, Page 7

LIQUOR IN RESTAURANTS

A CONVICTION BUT NO FINE,

Reserved judgment Wfls delivered in the Magistrate's Court to-day by Mr. f, K. Hunt, S>,M., W the casein which I).' E. Dustin was charged .under sub-sec-tiop 1. of sectjon U. of The Sale "of Liquor Prevention Act. with allowing liquor to be consumed in a restaurant of which he is the manager, at a time when licensed premises were required to b e closed. At the hearing Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the police, and ]\lr. M. 'Myers for the defendant." The facts, \yliich were not disputed, were that on 16th Fiibriiary the upstairs hall of the defendant's premises in pups? street were let tp the Chemists' Association for ft social meeting for the sum of 30s, and Dustin supplied" the eatables, crockery, etc., at a certain rate per head. The promoters of the evening provided the alcoholic refreshment. The hall in question was nqt used ty defendant as a restaurant, biit merely for social eyflnrngs. The defendant was prosecuted in August last on similar facts, and Mr. J. B. Evans,.S.M., in dismissing the case, held that the room waß- not part of the premises. The same defence had been raised in the present caaerthat the rppm was nqt a part of tlie restaurant and that the restraint prescribecl by the Statute was confined to the actual room in which the keeper of\ the restaurant supplied meals to the general public. Since the decision of Mr. Evans the section had been considered by Mr, Justice Copper jn the case of Brptt v. Tjll, an appeal from a Mogis? trate's decision. Th,e Magistrate convicted a Hamilton restau.ra.nt-l;eeper for alIpwing alcoholic liquor to be supplied lifter 6 p.m. in his restaurant. In that case, too, the room had been let exclusively for social purposes, liut with, this difference; that in the HajnilVw ca.se the room to let was that ordinarily used as a. restaurant. It -was contended in the Hamilton ca *a that, as the restaurant had been closed (# the gen«u'?i public from 3.30 p.m. in order to prepare for the soflia!, from that time* the premises ceased to be 9> ' res.tau,rant. Mr. Justjoe Copper did not agree with this, holding that as the police ha,d power to nn'er, if necessary by force, under suhfeption 3 of section 11, the restaurant remained a restaurant whether it was closed to the general public or not. Mr. Hunt said that, in the present case, he cpnld not hold that the upstairs hall at Duetin's did not "in any manner appertain to the restaurant-" He thought it did, for it was used and kept as part of defendant's business. The d«-fen-dant was convicted, but as he lia<} a magisterial decision in his favour the last tjme, Mr. Hunt decided neither to fine him nor older him to pay coats. Mr. Myers intimated that he vrouM appeal against the decision, and MrHunt fixed £7 7s as security |