"COUNTRY CLUB"

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 33, 8 February 1940, Page 12

"COUNTRY CLUB"

MAGISTRATE DIFFERS

THE "BROWN OWL" CASE

FINES IMPOSED

"Looking at all the circumstances I am driven to conclude that member-1 ship of the club is a sham or cloak under which many persons, whose only purpose is to dance at the 'Brown Owl' and enjoy the conviviality which apparently attends such functions, sign nomination papers, and are at once admitted," said Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Lower Hutt Court today in the course of a reserved judgment. The case was that in which May- St. Johnston was charged with permitting liquor to be consumed in a dance hall, and permitting liquor to be consumed in a restaurant, during hours when licensed premises are required to be closed. ' Mr. R. R. Scott appeared for the defendant, and Sergeant J. W. McHohn conducted the prosecution. In the course of the judgment; the Magistrate stated that the "Brown Owl" was owned by the defendant's husband, and ieased to her. She conducted it as an accommodation or guest-house, and also as a restaurant and tearooms A licence was held for the accommodation house and restaurant. By an agreement dated July 21, 1938, between herself and a body called the Brown Owl Country Club (Inc.), the defendant purported to lease to that body the premises described in the document, together with certain chattels. A provision of the document was that the lessee should have the right to occupy the premises between 8 p.m. each Saturday and 9 a.m. the following day. The rental was £2 10s per week, and the premises leased consisted of a reception and dance hall, supper room, lounge, and conveniences. INCORPORATED CLUB. The Brown Owl Country Club (Inc.) was registered under the Incorporated Societies Act, and the defendant and her husband were among the original fifteen members who subscribed the application. The objects were: To promote the social welfare of its members; to provide social functions, etc., for its members; to promote the terpsichoreaa art among its members; and to rent, lease, or otherwise acquire such premises at the "Brown Owl" as may be necessary to fulfil the foregoing objects. Other provisions were for a management committee of four, consisting of the defendant, her husband, their son, and a Miss Benge. The defendant was chairman and secretary. The defendant had banked all moneys, including subscriptions, in her own account. The Magistrate stated that, in examining a considerable number of nomination forms, he found that the defendant was usually the proposer or seconder. From evidence he was satisfied that a large number of those proposed for membership signed the forms "on the very evening on which they desired to avail themselves of the terpsichorean and other social delights which admission confers." "They pay their humble half-crowns and are thereupon elected toVmehibership. Some discrimination as to. admission may be exercised by the defendant, but no formal steps are taken to submit the names of proposed members to the management committee at any meeting of that body." ' . The judgment went on to describe the happening on November 4, 1939< when Constables Williams and Stewart entered the premises at about 10 •p.m. There were between 30 and 40 people present, and beer, whisky, and soft drinks were on the tables. The defendant was warned, but previously stated that the Statutes Amendment Act, 1939. had no application to'the club. LIQUOR CONSUMED. Another visit was paid on November 19, 1939, at 12.30 a.m. About 100 peopla were then present, and gin, whisky, and beer were openly being consumed. In one party, of about 50, according to the book, only about seven or eight, were members of the club. : Entries in the book were not always complete, .as arrangements were made by telephone. Mrs. St. Johnston was quite frank, and told the police she was guided by legal advice. The Magistrate held that, as the charges were laid under different statutes (the Statutes Amendment Act, 1939, and the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917), the defendant might be separately convicted. The agreement was not a lease at all, as the club had no exclusive right to possession of the premises. What there was was a licence to use them for a few hours on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings.

He found that the premises were within the definition of restaurant in section 2 of the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917. The defendant was in control of the restaurant, and would be convicted of permitting liquor to be consumed during hours, when the restaurant was closed to the general public. As to the other charge, he had.no hesitation in concluding that the premises were a hall within the meaning of the Statutes Amendment Act. Admission was obtained by certain persons on payment of subscriptions, and these were accompanied by numerous guests, who were also paid for at a specified rate per head. "Having regard to the fact that all the revenue goes to the defendant, who is in control and who, in her own words to Constable Williams, has her •bread and butter' to think of, I think the purpose of the club is to try and overcome certain provisions of the law, though in its inception nof the particular law now infringed." The defendant was fined £25 on one charge and £7 10s on the _ other. Twenty-five pounds is the minimum fine for the charge of consuming liquor in a restaurant, the offence being a second one. Area 6, Wanganui-Palmerston North; Area 7, Hawke's Bay-Gisborne-Waira-Irapa; Area 8, Taranaki):— Area ! 5 0 7 8 K,,u».d ........ |« >;.. MJI Iggj ■KSSE :-: S £ » f Sent to camp ... 200G 727 944 706