DEINKS ON SUNDAY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 14 July 1928, Page 4

DEINKS ON SUNDAY

BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS

TAITA HOTEL CASE

Are people who call at an hotel, when out on a, motor run on a, Sunday and who ask for drinks shortly after enter--1 ing the hotel bona lide travellers? Mr E. Page, S.M., answers this question in *.tlie negative in the judgment he delivered to-day in the case ,in \vliich live men and three women were charged with having been found in the Taita Hotel unlawfully after hours, reports “The Post.’’ The defeu dants, who were represented at the healing by Mr d. McGrath, were Alex. Ad'coek. Leiina. Adcock, Joseph Hills, Fanny Inniss, Leon Albert Lihe.au, Jack Peiinail, Mrs J. Sproul, and Janies SprfK.nl. On Sunday afternoon, .‘ird June, five men "and three women from Wellington went- for a. motor drive up the Hutt Valley. Jt. was their practice to go out each Sunday in the late afternoon and call at one of the hotels in the Valley to have their evening meal. On this Situdiiy they intended going beyond Upper Hutt, hut, the weather proving; bleak and cold, they stopped shortly after 4 o’clock at, the Taita Hotel. The party was taken to the private sitting-room, where the men took off their hats and coats and all prepared to wait for the evening meal. A drink was suggested and each of the party specified one, but when tho licensee was in the bar and had just finished getting tho drinks ready on a tray, police officers entered the premises. Each of the party was charged under section 104 of the Act. The defence was that the members of the party were bona tide travellers. The Licensing Act of 1881, said Mr Page., contained a provision whereby a licensee might lawfully sell liquor at any time to a bona fide traveller, and section 157 stated that a person should not. l»o deemed to lie a bona fide traveller unless the place where he lodged the previous night was at. least three miles from the licensed premises at which the liquor was sought. In 1895 the law was altered hv the repeal of section 150 and by the substitution of a new clause making it lawful for, hut not obligatory upon, a licensee to sell liquor at any time to a. bona fide traveller seeking refreshment on arriving from a journey. In 1904 the last section was repealed, so that thereafter liquor could not he lawfully sold after hours to a traveller. Section 157, however, containing the three, miles’ limit provision remained on the Statute Book until 1908, when, on the consolidation of the statutes, it was dropped. The only provision relating to travellers now remaining on the Statute Book was section 194, under which the present charge was laid. That section, which had been in force since 1904, provided that every person found on licensed premises after hours was liable to a fine • unless he satisfied the Court he was an inmate, servant, or lodger on such premises, or a, bona fide traveller, or that otherwise his presence on sncli premises was not. a, breach of the Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises. The* question was whether the defendants were sheltered under its provisions. If the matter had not been the subject' of any judicial decision he should have 'doubted whether people out for an afternoon motor run within a relatively few miles of their homes were travellers, hut there were many decisions both in Now Zealand and in England holding that to constitute a, person a traveller, the journey he was making need not he a very great one. Although, with modern means of locomotion, distances that formerly appeared substantial now appeared small, it seemed to him that in view of the decisions lie must, hold that the defendants were travellers.

The Magistrate added: “T do not tiiink that, a traveller, who, while claiming the protection of this section, is proved to have keen a party to a breach of the licensing laws, or who is found under circumstances suggesting a broach or evasion of those laws, can he held to have established, his bona tides. T think, therefore, that the defendants, if they are travellers, have failed to prove that they are bona fide within the meaning of the section, and that they must be convicted.” On the apolication of Sub-Tnspeetor Lander the charges against Lenn'a Adcock and Mrs Snronl wore withdrawn. Adcock was fined £l, and on Mr McGrath asking tor leave to apncal, the uenflltv in the other eases was deferred. Security for appeal was fixed at ’£lo 10s, plus the amount of the fine.