BARMAID FINED.

Northern Advocate, 3 May 1911, Page 3

BARMAID FINED.

WARNING TO LICENSEES

FOR SELLING LIQUOR TO A YOUTH

The first case of its kind under the new Licensing Act came before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Wellington Magistrate's Court, when Mamie Moynihan, a relieving barmaid at the Metropolitan Hotel, was charged that being a person other than the licensee of the Metropolitan Hotel she supplied whisky to John Galvin ,a person apparently under the age of nineteen years, he not being a resident or a ffcna fide guest or lodger at the hotel. jP?»ub-Inspector Sheehan prosecuted and Mr J. J. McGrath appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Sergeant Kelly stated that he entered the hotel about 9.5 p.m. on April 16th, and in a small room, used as a bottle store (but where : .

were also served with liquor), he saw a youth named John Galvin. He was sitting at the courter on which- in front of him, there was a glass of whisky. Witness asked him his age, and from what he told him he called the barmaid, and asked her if she had served him. She admitted having served Galvin, but stated that she was oWy relieving for the night. Witness then called the licensee, and asked the barmaid how it was she had not asked Galvin his age. She stated she had known him in Palmerston North about two and a half years ago, and had always understood that he was over twenty-one years of age.

To Mr McGrath: The room where Galvin was served was not the proper bar, but was used partly as a bottle store. Galvin was wearing an overcoat, and it had the effect of making him appear older than he was. He was also wearing glasses.

* John Galvin, who stated he was eighteen years and three months old, said he entered the hotel on the evening in question and asked for a whisky. He was supplied with one and paid for it. The defendant, who served him, did not ask how old he was.

Mr McGrath said that under the new Act the defendant, if convicted, was liable to a penalty of £10. She was only a relieving barmaid, but counsel admitted that she should have taken reasonable precautions to ascertain the age of any person whom she served with liquor. He thought Galvin. might easily be taken for twenty-one years of age or over, especially as the defendant had known him about two years ago and had always understood him to be over' twenty-one years of age. This might mean a serious matter to defendant in regard to her license, and counsel thought his Worship might well dismiss the information.

"Defendant, in evidence, stated that she had served Galvin with liqour on several occasions in Palmerston North two years ago, and thought he was over twenty-one years of age. She had thought when he was in Paliur.- ,- ston that he was sufficiently old to be' served with liquor. He had never mentioned his age to her.

His Worship said he was not prepared to dismiss the information. The legislation should be known to the licensees of hotels and their assistants. Any young man had no right to go into a bar and asked to be served with liquor, and his presence on licensed premises indicated, to a certain extent, that he was over the age required. Under the second portion of the Act a person under twenty-one years of age, attempting to have liquor served him, was liable to a penalty. There was an onus thrown on him if he made any such demand. There was also an onus on the licensee to see that the person served did not have the appearance of being under age. His Worship did not consider that Galvin appeared to be over twenty-one years of age. The defendant may have been misled by his appearance, but he (his Worship) would not have thought him ever twenty-one years.

Defendant was convicted and fined 10s, with costs 9s.