LIQUOR AT CABARET

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 27 May 1927, Page 6

LIQUOR AT CABARET

A DIRECTOR'S POSITION

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

(United Proun Anflociatiors

AiIGKLA-Nfc, 26th few . Ar. appeal was heard liy the- Chid Justice ibis, morning from ihe cohvic lion recorded by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. last July against Dr. F. J. Rayner w a charge of allowing liquor to lie con sumed at Ihe Dixieland Cabaret.

Mr R. McVeagh contended that there was nothing to show that Dr. Rayner was connected with the offence, but his Honour considered that there was. Mr McVeagh: "There is no evidence." His Honour; "The inference is plain. Justice may be blind, but I hope not stupid." Mr McVeagh suggested that a man .night have been in some other part of the country and not know what was going on. There was no evidence that Dr. Rayner was in the cabaret on the night of the offence. There must be something to show that he was a party to what was done. His Honour: "So long as he is chairman of directors surely lib permits what is done." His Honour said that, as it. matter of business, liquor was allowed and permitted" to be consumed. That business was controlled by the directors of which Rayner was' chairman. The system could not continue without his knowledge. His Honour asked if Rayner were not as liable as though he had himself committed the act. Mr McVeagh: "There may have been irregularities, but merely as'chairman of directors Dr Rayner was not responsible." His Honour: "There were systematic regularities. Surely the inference is that he must have known." Mr McVeagh still contended that there was no evidence that Dr. Rayner had knowledge of what was done. His Honour (glancing through papers): "I say the evidence does show it." In elaborating his argument, counsel said that it might have happened that his client was opposed to liquor being consumed at the cabaret, hut was bound by the decision of 'the board majority. Mr V. N. Hubble, for the police, submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the management permitted consumption of liquor. It was a method of running the cabaret. Dr. Rayner's own evidence was to the effect that "people brought liquor." Dr. Rayner was frequently in attendance, and the Magistrate was quite justified in coming to the conclusion that he knew what was going on. Mr Hubble then dealt at length with the law on the matter. Replying, Mr McVeagh said that the onus of proof had not been discharged. How, on the evidence, could it be said that Dr Rayner "allowed" liquor to be consumed.

His Honour: "The restaurant was allowing liquor to be brought to the place, tho amenities being supplied there. It was done openly, and though Dr. BayTier was not present on the occasion to which the charge refers he was on others." Mr McVeagh: "There is no evidence of that." His Honour: "He was there. Has he not got eyes?" Mr McVeagh: "There was no evidence that liquor was supplied on other occasions." His Honour: "I differ entirely. This was a systematic practice." In the course of further comment, his Honour mentioned that the evidence showed that wine, champagne, and whisky were openly displayed. He did not doubt what his decision should be, but he would reserve, judgment in order to put it in the more exact language.