THE LAW’S A “HASS” BUT CANNOT CHANGE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6993, 20 August 1929, Page 9

THE LAW’S A “HASS” BUT CANNOT CHANGE

LICENSING- ACT BREACHES. INTERESTING POINT IN MAGISTRATE’S COURT. In the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., the licensee of the Railway hotel, John L. Anderson, pleaded guilty to two charges brought under the Licensing Act. On the first charge of exposing liquor for a sale at a time when licensed premises were required to be closed, he was convicted and discharged. On a second charge of selling liquor after hours, he was fined £5, with 10s court costs.

Senior-Sergeant Whitehouse, for the police, did not regard the offences as of a serious nature. “Since Mr Anderson has taken over this hotel, your Worship,” he said “he has done his best to run the house according to the Act and he has done very well indeed. Unfortunately, on this particular morning, there were one or two strangers amongst the boarders.” Illegally on Premises.

Arising out of this prosecution, two mon who wore found illegally on the premises when the police visited the hotel, were charged with this offence. The first, Charles E. O’Sullivan, pleaded guilty and was fined £2 with 10s costs.

Arthur M. Manson, the second defendant, entered a plea of not guilty, howevor, and his solicitor (Mr H. R. Cooper) had something to say on his behalf.

It appeared that this defendant had been helping to superintend the accommodation for a party of Hawera visitors who had been visiting the itlanawatu Savage Olub. On the day of the alleged offence, Manson had been asked by two of these visitors, who were staying at the hotel to come inside for a drink. He had gone into the bar with them and while they had been drinking, the police had eome in. Mr Cooper submitted that as the invited guest of the guests in the hotel, defendant was not liable. The Magistrate stated that he could not agree on this point. According to a decision of the English Court of Appeal, if a man wont into a hotel after hours for the specific purpose of obtaining a drink, he was illegally in licensed premises, even if he had been invited into the house by bona fide guests. The position under this decision was rather peculiar, as the boarder at the hotel could get his guests a drink from the licensee, without the latter being liable. After some argument, Mr Cooper agreed that the Court of Appoal decision was uncontrovertible. “It has been said that “the law’s a hass, ’’ he remarked. The Magistrate (smilingly): “I was surprised to see that case myself, but it is good law. I will take the circumstances of the case into consideration, however, and will not impose the full penalty.’.’ Defendant was fined the nominal penalty of 10s with Court costs amounting to a similar sum.