AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13456, 8 April 1907, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

DEFINITION OF "LICENSED. PREMISES."

APPEAL AGAINST MAGISTRATE'S

DECISION

A sitting in banco was hold by Mr. Justice Cooper at the. Auckland Supremo Court on .Saturday.

An appeal was made by the police against the decision of Mr. K. S. Bush, S.M., Thames, in which Viotol Rowdlei was charged with being on the premises of the Cornwall Arms Hotel, when such were, directed to bo closed by the Licensing Act.

The Crown solicitor (the Hon. J. A. lole) appeared in support, and in stating the facts said Rowdier, when charged, admitted being in the yard of Jie hotel, but denied that ho was there for the purpose of committing any breach of the Act. No evidence wan given, and the magistrate dismissed the case, on the ground that the yard was not included in the definition of licensed premises," the house, being all that was specified in a license. Mr. Tolo submitted that the magistrate was obviously wrong. In the first place, he said that the Act of 1904 dealt with "licensed premises," but gave no 'cfinition, but he overlooked the lac' that with this Act was incorporated theAct of 1881, which clearly defined that the yard and outbuildings of a hotel were part of the "licensed premises."

His Honor said it was quite clear the appeal must ho allowed. In the Act of 1881 they found the following definition: — " ' Promises' includes house or place, r.nd shall be construed to mean and to extend to every room, billiard-room, closet, cellar, yard, skittle ground, stables, outhouse, shed, or any other place whatsoever of, belonging or in any manner appertaining to, such houso or "place." He would allow the appeal, and in referring the case back to the magistrate* would direct him that if he found that the respondent was on the premises with a reasonable excuse to dismiss the case. A QUESTION OF SURVEY. His Honor subsequently held a sitting in chambers, and heard an interesting case, in which the district land registrar at Gisborno was called upon to show cause why he should not issue a certificate of title under the Laud Transfer At Dr. Bam ford, appearing on behalf of the registrar, stated Jhat the block of land in question was situated in the Oisborne district, and a port-on of it was transferred to the Crown. i'ho remaining portion was subsequently sold to Herbert Wm. Williams, but. the district land registrar refused to give a title without a fresh survey, as he had reason to believe that an error was mad© in the original survey, which was carried out some years ago. The transferee, however, refused to comply, and matters remained as they were until the present summons wasissued. Dr. Bamford -on tended that the registrar was acting within his rights when he demanded a fresh survey, and that the transferee should pay for it. There was no law which could compel the registrar to perpetuate an error. Mr. Cotter, on behalf of the transferee, said there was nothing to prevent the registrar from returning the old title, with that portion marked off which had already been transferred to the Crown. He maintained that undei section 5 of the Act of 1888 the cost of a new survey, if made, should be borne out of the assurance fund, on the certificate of the Surveyor-General that it was required. His Honor reserved his decision. TWO THIEVES SENTENCED. Two prisoners, named Arthur Robert Furcell and .James Johnston, who'had pleaded! guilty in the lower Court to 17 charges of theft, were brought up for sentence before Mr. Justice Cooper at the Auckland Supreme Court on Saturday morning. The prisoners had nothing to say in extenuation. His Honor said it was a bad ease. There were no less than 17 charges against the prisoners, including one of stealing a portmanteau from the Imperial Hotel, for which they were liable to a sentence of seven years each. On the other charges they were liable to two years. He did not see his way to reduce the sentence, upon these, but on the charge of theft from the Imperial Hotel he would order each to serve a term of three years' imprisonment. On each of the other charges 1 hey would be sentenced to two years, the sentences to be concurrent with the other.

On the suggestion of the Crown solicitor. His Honor ordered the pawnbrokers, who had received portion of the stolen goods, to deliver them up to their rightful owners on payment of the amounts advanced. His Honor said, however, he would not mako any order where the goods were purchased by private individuals.