THE LICENSING ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15923, 8 May 1912, Page 6

THE LICENSING ACT.

HOTEL KEEPERS BEFORE THE COURT. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr H. TV. Bishop S.M., Alexander Palmer, licensee of Warner's Hotel, was charged with having, on April 19, exposed liquor for sale at an hour when the premises were supposed to have been closed; and further, with having, on the same date, allowed liquor to be consumed on the premises. Mr Cassidy appeared for the defendant. Mr Cassidy said that on the night in' question it was admitted that .three boarders had come home at 12.27 and had entered with a taxi-driver- They had been s'erved with liquor and had drunk it. The defendant had been seen with the bar lighted up, himself behind it and three men in front of it. There had been no attempt at secrecy.' Tlio sub-inspector admitted the truth of this. The Magistrate said that the licenses of a house with a reputation like Warner’s could not bo too careful. Counsel for the defence had had a wide experience in these cases and knew that he was always disposed to be more lenient when no attempt was made to mislead the Court. The offence had been admitted, and he always considered this strongly extenuating circumstance. When & licensee denied the charge nnd attempted to mislead the Court it was his custom to endorse his license. In the present case, however this had not been done, and in consideration of the previous good character of tho house, defendant would be fined £5 on tho first charge and on tho second he would bo convicted and discharged. FIMSD £lO. George lies, licensee of the Provincial Hotel, was charged with having Bold liquor to one David Barry after the legal closing hour, and with having exposed liquor for sale after closing hours. Mr E. T. Harper, for defendant, pointed out that Barry was a boarder, , and that, therefore defendant was entitled to sell liquor to him, and, as there had been no unlawful sale in this case, there had been no unlawful exposure. ,* The Magistrate upheld this plea, and dismissed , the cases. Defendant was further charged with having allowed consumption of liquor on Ins premises after closing hours. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but in extenuation of his action said that a man named Barrv had come from . Port Levy. He was stopping at the hotel, and it was customary for the barman to remain after 10.p.m. to serve boarders with drinks as they camo in. Barry had arrived with two friends, and th© j barman, thinking they*,were all boarders, had served them with drinks. Lat« r he had gathered from their converse- ( t-ion that they were not all boarders, and had approached witness, who had gone out and remonstrated with Barry. During their altercation t j lo police had knocked and Had been instantly admit-' ted. A taxicab had been standin"

the door all the time, but the barman had not noticed it. Sergeant Clarkson said that he had visited the hotel'. ’ and had. found, the man Barry, with two other men, who were also drinking. The defendant had said that tile men wero all boarders, and bad come in at 9.30. Constable H. J. Jackson- gave similar evidence. The Magistrate said that he should not think that any licensee would consider a boarder entitled to supply liit friends with liquor if. the boarder, was drunk. There was a regrettable discrepancy between the evidence" of'the constables and that of the defendant, and lie had previously stated wliat was bis course in such a case. He would inflict a substantial penalty. Tho defendant would be fined £lO and costs.