IMPORTANT LICENSING DECISION.

Grey River Argus, 13 October 1922, Page 3

IMPORTANT LICENSING DECISION.

THE LODGER’S SUNDAY LIQUOR. The “Johnops” sauntered into the Empire Hotel at Lyttelton one morning shortly before nine o’clock. In the commercial room they found three men sitting, each with a brimming measure of wholesome ale poised in position for the quenching or an early morning thirst. Two of the men were boarders in the hotel, but the third was not. The licensee’s explanation was that, when she served the drinks, she was under the impression that ali three were boarders. The drinks were ordered and paid for by one who was a boarder. Lawyer Thomas, w'io appeared for the defendant, reckoned that a judgment of Air Justice Richmond, in a similar case in 1895 (that of White v. Nestor, N.Z. Law Reports, vol. 13, page 571), an appeal against a conviction for serving ana exposing, left the Magistrate no option but to dismiss the present information. This judgment read: “A sale of liquor by a licensed innkeeper on a Sunday to a lodger for consumption by himself and others whom he has met in the vicinity of a bar and invited to have a drink with him, the lodger calling f<-r the drinks and paying for them, is a sale to the lodger within the meaning of section 156 of the Licensing Act, .1881, and is lawful under in.it Act. i The mere exposure of liquor m a bar, so as to be visible by others, -wh le drink lawfully sold to a lodger is teing handed out of a bar, does not constitute an ‘exposure for sale to such, others, or an. exposure for sale, genI erally, within the meaning of section 155 of the Act.” Air McCarthy snd he would have to accept the decision quoted. The charge of selling i hours was dismissed, as also was an- ■ other of exposing liquor for sale. How many hotel-keepers and others throughout New Zealand, not having a 1.-twyi r astute enough to dig up this decision of twenty-live years ago, have been convicted under similar circumstances? Charges against James Smith and Daniel Dclahunty, of having been found unlawfully on the licensed premises of | the Prince Arthur Hotel, -were dismissed by Air Boynton, S.AL, at the Auckland Police Court. It was shown that when the police visited the hotel on a recent evening they found the two men consuming liquor. Smith was booked as a boarder, and this, it was contended by Air R. A. Singer, quite entitled him to drink on the premises and to invite his friend Detail unty to have a drink. ‘•lt is quite true that th-o law, as il stands, allows a boarder in an hotel to treat his friends,” said Air Boynton, in dismissing the case. “He can treat his friends to drinks all night if he likes, it appears. It is open to many abuses, but there you are. This loophole w r as pointed out by a Judge years ago, but the law has not been amended. I myself sent down a minute to the proper authorities on this matter, but the situation remains unaltered.”