THE BROWN OWL

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 15, 18 January 1940, Page 17

THE BROWN OWL

RESTAURANT OR CLUB

CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR

. Two charges were brought yesterday at the Lower Hutt Court, before Mr..A. M. Goulding, S.M., against Mrs. May St. Johnston, proprietress of the Brown Owl at Akatarawa (1) for permitting liquor to be held in a restaurant and (2) for permitting liquor to be consumed in a dance hall. The case for the police was conducted by Sergeant J. W. McHolm and the defence by Mr. E. R. Scott. Constable F. J. Williams gave evidence of visiting the premises on November 4 when he saw in the supperroom liquor being consumed. He asked Mrs. St. Johnston if she was aware she was committing a breach of the law and produced to her a copy of the Act. Mrs. St. Johnston had stated that she did not consider it was an offence. Witness had stated that Mrs. St. Johnston should consider his visit as a warning. Witness again visited the premises on November 19 at 12.50 on Sunday morning. There were 2 buses and a number of cars parked outside the premises and about 100 persons were in the dance hail. In the supper room j were a number of bottles of beer, a bottle of gin, and a bottle of whisky; and about twelve persons in the room were consuming liquor. Mrs. St. Johnston produced a book called the "Visitors' Book" and on the front two pages there was • a list of parties alleged to be present that evening. The book was headed with the seal of the Brown Owl Country Club, Inc. In the case of some of the parties the name of the host was mentioned but in others the place for the name was blank; Mrs. St. Johnston had explained that there had not yet been time-to enter the names in the blankspaces. The first party was for 50 guests and others ranged from eight to 24 guests. Mrs. St. Johnston had produced receipt butts showing that for the large party she had received £17 10s and sums ranging from £1 12s to £3 4s from othets. The charge made was for dinner and the dance or supper and dance as the case, might be. All the members attending that night, Mrs. St. Johnston had stated, were members of the club or their friends. Witness had informed Mrs. St. Johnston that in his opinion an attempt to evade the law was being made and Mrs. St. Johnston had replied that her solicitor Had informed her that no br&ach of the law was being committed. She had* frankly admitted the presence and consumption of liquor. The premises were used as a restaurant. There was *a notice displayed that from 8 p.m. on Saturday nights to 9 a.m. on Sundays, the premises were under the control of the Brown Owl Country Club, Inc. As far as witness could see Mrs. St. Johnston was definitely in control during these hours as during the rest of the.week* Examined; by Mr, Scott witness stated that.he had on occasions been called upon by Mrs. St. Johnston to remove persons from the premises. The persons removed had either been under the influence of liquor or els<B the premises had already been filled. He was aware that the club had been formed for about a year and was of the opinion that its object was to evade the law regarding Sunday "trading. : .:■•• .: ■ :>.■-:■-■-.■ Re-examined witness stated that proceedings had previously been taken, before the club was formed, for allowing liquor to be consumed in a restaurant. Constable Stewart corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Mr.. I. M. Campbell* overseer for the Hutt.-County Council, stated that the premises were registered under the county bylaws as an accommodation house and as a public hall; the first registration carried with it a licence as an eating house. ~ CONTENTIONS jOF DEFENCE. For the defence Mr. Scott submitted that the premises were not a restaurant, contending that; a restaurant was a place other than licensed premises or an accommodation house. Sergeant McE[olm in reply said that these premises Were not an accommodation house under the Licensing Act but merely registered as such under a bylaw. Mr. Scott then outlined the position of the club, stating that its formation was the outcome of a desire by patrons of the premises over a long period of years to form a social club, and it was hoped in time to turn the premises into ■a residential club. At present the club, under its lease, took control of premises from 8 p.m. on Saturday to 9Va.m. on Sunday. The club was hot a mere legal fiction. There was no charge for admission and no one but members and their friends was allowed to be present during the hours controlled by the club. Catering for members was arranged by application to Mrs. St. Johnston. The club was on the lines of city clubs which had the right to exclude the public. ; The premises were really a dwellinghouse and- definite encroachment on the rights of householders was being )nade by the prosecution. Turing to the charge that liquor was being consumed in a public dance hall, Mr. Scott contended that the premises were not a public dance hall, i At this stage the Bench'pointed out that the i-estriction was not only against public dance halls but against private.dances in halls. 'Miv Scott contended the Act restricting the consumption of liquor in dance halls was not meant to apply to such circumstances as the present. He quoted a judgment where a dance was declared a private and not a public ".dance. ■•-. -. ■' ~, ■':■ v .'■■•■' ■ ; Mrs. St. Johnston gave evidence along the lines submitted by her solicitor. '■■ ■-.■■■;..»■;• ■ . : . . Under cross-examination she stated that each member was allowed to bring in an average of ten friends. Among the party of fifty present on November 19 there were at least eight members.' .•■ .. .'.'■ -' ■ ."■;V; ■:-■""■'■■■■ . - There had been two committee meetings since the club was formed. Members were accepted on her sole authority as president of the club. The club had prepared a balance-sheet. No person, not being a •member or a friend, was allowed on the premises during the time the club had control.

Mr. H. St. Johnston, owner of the premises, gave" similar evidence. Mr. Goulding" reserved his decision.