LIQUOR IN CABARET

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 200, 24 July 1926, Page 2

LIQUOR IN CABARET

management charged. MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED, ’ Pec .-Press Association. AUCKLAND, July 23. As tho result of visits to the Dixieland Cabaret by two constables in plain clothes, Dr. F. J. Rayner (chairman of directors) was this morning charged, in.' the Magistrate’s Court, with permitting liquor to bo drunk in the restaurant at a time when licensed premises were required to be closed. The manager. Frederick William Prouting, was also charged with allowing liquor to be consumed. Sergeant Calwell told the magistrate, Mr F. K. Hunt, that Dixieland was run on American cabaret lines. It was contended that it w r as also a restaurant. A constable stated that, in company with another, he went to Dixieland on May 4. That night there was a charity ball there. He had reserved a table, and paid 7s 6d to get in, but everything additional was charged for, except the dancing. Part of the cabaret was set apart as cubicles, which contained tables, chairs and in some cases settees. An extra charge was made for the cubicles. The appearance of the cabaret suggested that it was a restaurant. There were waitresses and waiters. .Witness had supper. Mr Hunt: What did you have?

Witness: Salmon mayonnaise. That looked the most substantial item on the menu. (Laughter.) Continuing, witness said that when dancing commenced, champagne, w’ine, and whisky were openly displayed on the tables. He saw people drink liquor from glasses provided; in fact, a waitress asked the witness if ho desired a “spot.” As the evening wore on the majority began to show signs of having consumed liquor. Several young women could hardly support themselves, and were hanging on to their dancing partners’ necks ; to use a 'common expressions, they were “gone at the knees,” and many were behaving in a disorderly manner. Witness knew that liquor was consumed, because he saw the bottles with their labels and the contents in glasses left on tho tables. He could plainly smell liquor on the dancers, and he also saw it opened and consumed. Liquor was undoubtedly carried in. Witness saw none being supplied by the cabaret. One young man took his coat off and looked for fight. There was no supervision, and no one seemed to be keeping order. Constable Waters corroborated what the previous witness had said. Constable Spellman said that he had been stationed at Point Chavalier since December 15 last. Dixieland was a popular, attraction, especially in the summer months. It was near the beach. . On one Sunday, witness estimated that 13,000 persons visited the cabaret on that day. The City Council had 16 motor buses running out there, . while there. were also 30 private buses in commission. Witness knew the manager, who had always been anxious for him to inspect the cabaret whenever the desired. Witness would not swear that Dr. Rayner was present on tho night of May 4. The restaurant was always open every day, and was the only sit-down restaurant in the district. It was very well conducted as a restaurant. Witness had seen people coming away from the cabaret under the influence of liquor. Mr MoVeagh (counsel for defendants) objected to this statement, which he said was in no way relevant, and which he could not combat in the present case. Sergeant Calwell stated that another witness. Sergeant Mclntyre, would prove that Dr. Rayner was managing director. Mr McVeagh: That is not correct. Dr. Rayner is chairman of directors in Dixieland, Ltd. Sergeant Mclntyre said he interviewed Dr. Rayner on June 21. The Doctor told him that he was managing director of the cabaret, and that Prouting was the manager. Mr McVeagh said that to establish the charge it was essential that the police prove that liquor was consumed in a restaurant. In the Dixieland Cabaret dancing was the major attraction, and refreshments were supplied incidental to that dancing. It was not disputed that patrons took liquor into the cabaret. The management did everything in its power to prevent any excesses,, Ho submitted that the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act was not intended to apply to a cabaret where guests brought their own liquor. Its intention was to prevent the consumption of drink in ordinary restaurants which catered for evening meals or suppers after hotels were closed. It did not embrace a cabaret where light refreshments were supplied as a secondary consideration. Patrons of high repute could not be challenged at the door or searched for liquor. Defendant Rayner, in evidence, said that tho Dixieland Company was a private limited liability company with a paid-up capital of £25,000. The cabaret catered for the most reputable class of people. The magistrate: What’s that? Rayner: 1 should say that the patrons of Dixieland aro the elite of Auckland. The magistrate:; Let me get that down. Rayner said that he never had seen any' objectionable behaviour at the cabaret. The magistrate: If I thought I might come to any other conclusion I would give a reserved decision, but Dixieland is fitted with the usual requirements of a restaurant, a kitchen, canteen, etc., while there are also waiters and waitresses. The only difference is that at night prices are charged for admission, while in the afternoon it is different. It may bo true that dancing is tho principal object. It is one of tho most mischievous occupations for a business that I can conceive. In a big town with a tremendous population it might bo different. lam going to inflict the maximum penalty on both Dr Rayner and the manager. Each will bo fined £2O and costs, and I say this: Until a possible appeal comes off, if anybody takes liquor into the cabaret and is broght up hero, they will be fined £5. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO 10s in each case.