BREACHES OF LIQUOR LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16300, 5 August 1916, Page 5

BREACHES OF LIQUOR LAW.

ILLEGALLY SUPPLIED.

LICENSEE AND BAEMAID FIXED*

JtrDGMEXT was given by Mr F V Frazer, S.M., in the PoKce Court yesterday, in the case in which Daniel 6'Cod* nor, licensee of the United Service Hotel, and his daughter, Katie O'Connor (Mr« W. J. Napier), were charged vritl* breaches of the Licensing Act. | When the case was heard on Monday* evidence was given to the effect that at sober man accompanied a drunken man into the United Service Hotel and parchased drinks from the barmaid. Late? the drunken man was arrested. The magistrate stated that the license* was charged with having permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises, and Katie O'Connor, who acted as ' barmaid, with having supplied liquor to an intoxicated man.

After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Frazer said that so far as the barmaid was concerned the case against her practically rested on the meaning of the word " supply" in section 205 of the Licensing Act, 1903. Section 181, dealing with a licensee, read: "If any innkeeper sells any liquor to any intoxicated person he shall be liable," etc. It had been held that a licensee could not be convicted under"section 181 of selling to an intoxij cated person when the sale was made to a | sober companion who was treating the J intoxicated person. " Supply," however, j was a wider term than 'sell," and he ; had to deride whethp? it was intended to cover a case like this. Where an intoxicated man was in another portion of a, hotel and a sober man paid at the bar for two drinks, one of which was for the intoxicated man. it- could hardly be doubted that the supply was for the sober man alone .- but where two persons entered a bar and one treated the other, and the barmaid handed each a glass of liquor, she was surely supplying to the order of the sober man. Mr. I-'razec cited rulings that the word "supply"would cover a charge such as the one before him. It appeared to him that, the object of the section was to prevent absolutely any intoxicated person being served with liquor on licensed premises by any employee of the licensee. The man who was supplied with liquor was more than merely intoxicated, he had progressed to the stage properly called drunkenness, and whether the barmaid noticed it or not was not essential. Therefore she must be convicted.

With regard to the licensee, Mr. Frazer «aid that through the barmaid -who -was left by the licensee in charge of the bar, nnd to whom his authority was delegated, the licensee was guilty of permitting drunkenness. As he personally did not commit the offence, and as his record wa3 pood, he would be fined £1. and costs 7.«, and his license would not be endorsed. Miss O'Connor's record was also good, and she would be fined £2. and costs 7s.

The magistrate said it had been subtlest ed by counsel for defendants that O'Connor, if convicted, would risk the forfeiture of his lease. owing to a clauso in the deeds. While be (Mr. Frazer) might express the opinion that such a provision was inequitable, he was bound to ignore any such i-onsequences when dealing with an alleged breach of the Act. In the present it would be manifestly unfair that his conviction should affe<-t O'Connor's lease, but that was a matter which lav between himself and hi? lessor.