LICENSING BREACH

Evening Star, Issue 23100, 28 October 1938, Page 10

LICENSING BREACH

DRINK AT A RESTAURANT PROPRIETOR FIHED Pleading guilty to a charge of allowing liquor to be drunk in a restaurant, Ellis Thomas Morris, the proprietor of Cargill’s Castle at St, Clair, was lined £5 and costs in the Police Court today, the facts presented by the police being that when a constable visited the premises at 12.50 on a Sunday morning he found bottles of beer on some of the tables and some of the patrons were intoxicated. There was no suggestion, said /Senior-sergeant Claasen, who prosecuted, of any sale of liquor by the defendant. The Senior Sergeant said that defendant was proprietor of Cargill’s Castle at St. Clair, and at 12.50 a.m. on Sunday, September 25, Constable Mannix visited the castle. A number of patrons of each sex were seated at tables, on some of which were bottles containing beer. Some of the patrons showed signs of intoxication, They were being attended by waiters, and defendant stated that nis patrons had joined a club he had organised, and under those circumstances he thought liquor could be consumed on the premises. The police were able to say that the premises, as far as defendant was concerned, had been well conducted. Mr D. Solomon, who appeared for the defendant, said the premises had been conducted as a restaurant and dance hall'for six years, and the defendant would not allow liquor to be consumed on the premises. A new cabaret had started in Dunedin, and defendant’s patrons told him they would not come to his premises because the management of . the new cabaret allowed liquor to be consumed on their premises. It was being conducted as a dance hall, and the interesting question arose if an offence were committed if liquor were consumed in a dance hall which was not a restaurant. In endeavouring to keep within the law, Morris had formed the evening part of [his entertainment into a dancing club, the only ones able to attend being members. The only subscription was 2s 6d, and an entrance fee had to he paid on Saturday nights when they attended. There was not the slightest suggestion of any sale of liquor by defendant. Any liquor consumed was that brought by patrons, “ Are the police agreed that there was no suggestion of liquor being sold.” asked the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle). Senior-sergeant Claasen: “There is no suggestion that defendant was trading in liquor. The liquor we definitely knew to he the property of his patrons.” The Magistrate said that in some cases it was better that liquor should be drunk in this manner than that it should be drunk in a motor car. However, it was prohibited under the Licensing Act. . A fine of £5 and costs was imposed.