SALE OF LIQUOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22524, 15 September 1936, Page 10

SALE OF LIQUOR

BED BOOKED AT HOTEL BEER TAKEN TO HOME QUESTION OF BONA FIDES NO OFFENCE BY LICENSEE / [from our own correspondent] HAMILTON. Monday An unusual ease under the Licensing Act was heard in the Hamilton Police Court to-day, when a man whoso name 12 nas later ordered" to be suppressed pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining liquor after hours by representing that bo was a lodger. Senior-Sergeant G. H. Lambert said that defendant entered tho Hotel Frankton at 9.40 p.m. on August 8 and booked a bed, for which he paid 4s. Ho did not go to tho bedroom, and he had no luggage; After paying for the bed, defendant bought 15 bottles of ale.

Defendant said he did not know ho was committing a breach of the law. A fine of £1 was imposed. Subsequently the licensee of the hotel. Cyril Lansdowno Nicholls (Mr. North) was charged with selling liquor after hours.' Police Contention Senior-Sergeant Lambert contended that the purchaser's main purpose in visiting the hotel was to procure liquor. Tho purchaser of tho liquor gave evidence that he booked and paid for a rodm at the hotel. He later ordered and was supplied with 15 large bottles bf ale, which were carried out to his car. Ho was taking tho liquor to his homo in Hamilton. Witness said lie later returned and slept in the hotel.

Constable G. F. Atkins said he saw ths hotel porter carrying liquor from the hotel to the car. The licensee was called and he explained that the man who bought the liquor was a boarder and was entitled to be supplied. Entitled to Buy Liquor

The licensee said in evidence that he supplied the liquor only after he had been informed that the man had booked in* for the night. He had no idea that the liquor was leaving the premises. The magistrate, Mr; S. L. Paterson, said that the man who bought the beer had become a lodger and was entitled to purchase liquor. There was nothing in the Act requiring him to consume it or entertain friend? on the premises, or to stay for more than one night there. The information was dismissed.

The purchaser of the liquor then asked the magistrate to order the suppression of his name, in view of the decision in the case against the licensee. The magistrate smilingly agreed, remarking that. had the applicant not pleaded guilty to the charge against him a conviction might not have been entered.