AFTER A DANCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 12 May 1939, Page 6

AFTER A DANCE

SUPPER PARTY BREAKS THE LAW BEER TAKEN INTO A RESTAURANT FIVE STRANGERS TO NELSON Charges arising out of a supper party which was held at a Bridge street restaurant after a dance on the night of 31st March, were heard before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Couprt to-day. when five people, strangers to Nelson, were charged with drinking liquor in a restaurant at a time when licensed premises are required to be closed. They were Vera Gubb, Roy Lester, Lauri Paddi, William Pritchard and Wally Ransome.

A letter from one of the defendants, none of whom appeared, admitted the consuming of the liquor; and fines of 10s, costs 10s. were imposed in each

The proprietor of the restaurant. Charles Albert White, was charged that being the occupier of a restaurant in Bridge street, he permitted liquor to be drunk at a time licensed premises were required by the Licensing Act to be closed.

Mr M.'C. H. Cheek represented de fendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Senior-Sergeant C. Petersen said that late this night Constables Rush and Bourkc were on duty and saw a party go into the restaurant. Their attention was drawn to the party, because two of the men were carrying a heavy suitcase. Some time afterwards, the policemen entered the dining room of the restaurant.

Constable A. Rush in evidence said that at 1 o’clock in the morning he entered the restaurant and saw one of the men raising a glass to his lips. As he walked across the floor he met the waitress between the two tables occupied by the party. She was removing dirty dishes from one table. Witness went to one table where Paddi was sitting with four others, and took a glass which he was holding under the table. It was about one-third full of beer. Under the table was an empty beer bott-ie. In the corner was a suitcase containing eight full bottles of beer, and there were two more empty bottles. A glass and a cup on the table both had contained liquor. Mrs White was called by the waitress from the kitchen, and Mr White came down from upstairs. Both apparently were unaware of the fact that drinking was going on. Constable M. Bourke gave corroborative evidence, saying that five persons admitted having consumed beer while in the restaurant, and one admitted having brought it there. Mr Cheek submitted that so far there had been no evidence given of permitting. The only evidence was as to drinking in the restaurant (which the defence could not deny); and there weu. evidence that a waitress was in the room, and the suggestion only, that she saw the drink.

The position was entirely distinguishable from the question of the vicarious liability of a barman It was no duty of a waitress to do anything except take the orders and deliver the food. A principal was not liable if a servant or agent had limited authority only, and exceeded that authority. If the present case were required to be taken further, Mr Cheek said that he proposed to bring evidence that there was an express order given to this restaurant’s staff to report at once any sign of intoxicating liquor on the premises. The proprietor had been in business for 25 years and took a pride in the running of the restaurant.

The Magistrate: “I understand it i: well conducted.”

Mr Cheek continued that local people would have known that they could noi take liquor there, but strangers had got it in without the proprietor knowing. There was no evidence to show that there was any permission on the part of the proprietor and his wife; so that the only possible knowledge was the presumed knowledge of the waitress. Mr Cheek submitted that there was no justification for a conviction against the waitress.

The Magistrate said he was of opinion that there was no evidence that either the proprietor or his wife knew about the liquor; but there was the question of the waitress, and it was her duty to see that there was no breach of the law. She was in charge of the dining room.

Mr Cheek said that in this event he would proceed with the evidence. Charles A. White, defendant, in evidence, said that he never allowed drink on the premises, and he had been unaware of the fact that this party had liquor. He was in bed when the party came in. Instructions that there must be no drinking of liquor was issued to all assistants

Mrs White in evidence said that she had been busy in the kitchen at the time; and the waitress, who had been with her for 14 years, assisting at certain times, had come and told her that the police were in the dining room. Later she had told her that she saw no beer.

The Senior-Sergeant remarked that it was hardly credible that the waitress could not have seen the drinking. The Magistrate said that a waitress was in the same position as a barman, and her duty was to see that there was no breach of the law. In this case, she not only had implied authority, but on the evidence of defendant she had expressed authority. As to her knowledge of whether liquor was there, he thought that it was impossible for her to have been unaware of it. She had express authority to prevent it, and defendant was answerable for the acts of his servants. In reference to the proprietor and his wife, the Magistrate said that he was satisfied that they were entirely innocent of knowledge of the fact that drinking on the premises was taking place.

Regarding the question of penalty, the Senior-Sergeant said that he was not pressing for a heavy fine, but rather desired full publicity of the case. The Magistrate convicted defendant and ordered him to pay the costs of the prosecution, 10s.