LICENSING LAW.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 231, 12 September 1922, Page 2

LICENSING LAW.

BOARDERS’ TREATING RIGHTS. New Plymouth exchanges now to hand supply the full text of the lengthy judgment which was delivered last week by Mr. Justice Chapman on the question of a hotel boarder’s right to “treat” guests during otherwise prohibited hours, and of which only a very meagre summary was telegraphed to us. As the question has been something of a moot point in the public mind, it may be worth while to give in iuller form the circumstances and substance oi this authoritative Supreme Court decision, which was delivered on appeal from a conviction in the Stipendiary Magistrate’s Court. The facts as presented on the appeal had at the original hearing been agreed upon between the prosecution and the defence without any evidence being called in support. They were stated as follows:—

(1) In the premises were, among others, two rooms, the telephone room and the commercial room; (2) in the telephone room were two lodgers and two of their guests; (3) in the commercial room were two lodgers and six guests (three belonging to each lodger, including one Mr. Fairley, who was assistant barman); (4) Airs. Locke, wile of the licensee, supplied drinks at the door of the telephone room to Air. Hickey, a lodger, which drinks were consumed by Air. Hickey and the other occupants of that room; (5) Airs. Locke supplied drinks at the door of the commercial room, first t Air. Cain, a lodger, and secondly to Mr. bryday, the other lodger. In other words, Mr. Cadn “shouted” ior ail in that room, and then Air. Fryday; (6) Airs. Lock© knew lodgers had their friends in the respective rooms, but did not know the number each had; (7) Airs. Locke had no authority from the licensee to supply other than lodgers; (8) all those in the rooms except the lodgers and Mr. Fairley (assistant barman) were convicted at a prior sitting of the Magistrate’s* Court; (9) tile lodgers were bona-fide lodgers, having been lodgers for some months ; (10) the drinks were bought and piaid tor by the lodgers; (11) the lodgers and their guests were not casual acquaintances, but were intimate friends, and this was known to the licensee and his wife. After dealing with the legislation on the subject ot selling liquor to lodgers living at licensed houses and tlieir guests, and citing a number of cases, his Honour’s judgment continued:

“The only evidence we have as to the status ot persons who consumed the liquor is that set out in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the admitted facts, namely, that the lodgers who bought and paid for the drinks were bona-fide lodgers and resident for months in the house, and that they and their guests were not casual acquaintances, but were intimate friends, and that this was known to the licensee and his wife. The only proper inference from these facts is that the licensee and his wife were not knowingly committiug an offence when she sold the liquor. There is no evidence here to rebut the ordinary presumption of innocence “Mr. Weston has argued that the Act of 1904 embodied in the Consolidated Act of 1908 has altered the law. In the first place it is to be observed that the wording of section 191 is very plain. It is lawful to sell to a lodger, and he is not, as was the bona-fide traveller under section 22 of the Act of 1895, obliged to restrict his purchase to such liquor as he requires for his own consumption.

“I cannot suppose that apart from any question of the sale of liquor either the private guests of a lodger could be considered to be persons whose presence on the premises was a breach of the law. So to hold would be to hold, quite apart from the question of sale of liquor, that a Magistrate would be bound to decide that such a person had no lawful right to be in the house, or rafher that he or she committed an offence in being there. The person might be the sister or brother, son or daughter, of the licensee, and yet be an offender. This is not the meaning of the provision. It means that if the person is not of the enumerated class the onus is on him or her to satisfy the Magistrate as to his or her reason for being Incidentally his Honour said furthermore: “Regarded as a question of law, Mr Weston (who was counsel for the respondent). I think properly, admits that if each of the boarders was entitled by law to order liquor for his guests as well as for himeslf he could in a bona-fide case make anyone his gues,t for the purpose.” The apepal was accordingly allowed, and the conviction quashed.