OLD BOYS’ REUNION

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 November 1926, Page 5

OLD BOYS’ REUNION

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN. LICENSEE CONVICTED. Since the night of October 19, the eighty or old boys who attended the reunion smoke concert at the Post Office Hotel, in connection with the Greymouth Main School Jubilee celebrationis, have been wondering what would be the outcome of the visit paid during the evening by two uninvited guests in police uniforms. The licensee of the hotel (Mr J, D. Wingham) was charged a fortnight ago with allowing liquor to be consumed on the' premises after 6 p.m., although it had been purchased before, that hour, the police contending that the permit issued under the Licensing Act' provided merely for the use of the room, and did not allow the consumption of liquor. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., reserved his decision, which he gave to-day as follows:

The facts were that a dinner to the old boys of the Greymouth Main School was being held In the dining room of,the hotel, hired for the purpose. under section 164 of the Act; chat iiqilbrs were consumed . after hours in the course of the dinner between 8 and 10 o'clock, and that the defendant was aware that the liquor was being consumed. For the defence, it was contended that during the time the room was hired it was outside the licensee’s control and for the time being ceased to be part 1 of the licensed premises. Section however, gave to the hirer of the room only “the exclusive control over admission to such room independent: of or unconnected with the proprie-; tor”; that was to say, the hirer had the right to admit or exclude from the function anyone he thought fit, or, in other words, to- admit the bidden and exclude the unbidde guest. But the section went further than that. The right of the licensee was not restricted beyond depriving him of the right to interfere with the admissions to the function, xiis rights, otherwise, and his liabilities under (lie Act. in respect of the licensed premises were not affected at all. Section 164, did not relieve him of any liability under Section 190. If, therefore, he knew of or connived at the consumption of liquor on the premises after hours by personsc who were not lawfully entitled to be supplied with it.

he was guilty of an offence under Section 196. The licensee, though aware of the consumption going on, believed it to be law.ful. He wotn„ be convicted and ordered to pay 7s costs. “BOTTLE STORE” DECISION. CHRISTCHURCH, November 29. Judge Stringer, in a reserved judgment to-day, held that a bottle store of an hotel is not a bar, thereby reversing the Magistrate’s decision in regard to a charge against George Iles', licensee of the Provincial Hotel, for employing a female, other than a registered barmaid, in the bottle store.