THE LICENSING LAWS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1831, 10 April 1907, Page 25

THE LICENSING LAWS

AN APPEAL SUSTAINED.

AN INTERESTING DECISION.

AUCKLAND, April G. An appeal involving the question of what, is included in the term “licensed premises” Avas heard by Mr Justice Cooper in banco this morning. Constable Beddek, of the Thames, appealed from a decision of Mr S. Bush, S.M., in the case of the police v. Viotor Rowdier, who ivas charged with having been found on the licensed pro. mises of the Cornwall Arms Hotel when such premises Avere required by law to be closed. The Hon. J. A. Tole, for the appellant, said the respondent admitted having been in the yard of the hotel, but denied that lie was there for the purpose of committing a breach of the Licensing Act. The Magistrate dismissed the case, upon the ground that the yard was not included in the definition of “licensed premises" under the licensing laivs, and that the house was all that Avas specified in a license. Mr Tole argued that the Magistrate Avas obviously wrong, for, although the Act of 1904 dealt Avitli licensed premises but gave no definition, he overlooked the fact that the Licensing Act of 1881 gave a clear definition as to what “licensed premises’’ meant, showing that a yard Avas included. His Honor said he need not go farther than the New Zealand statutes to alloAV the appeal. He agreed with Mr Tolo that the Act of 1881 and its definition of “licensed premises” applied. This definition included “every room, building, closet, cellar, skittle ground, stable, outhouses, Or any other place whatsoever appertaining to such house or place.” When a license was issued by the licensing committee it included necessarily all the matters which were referred to in the definition of section 4 of the Act of 1881. It would be absurd to say +hat, if an innkeeper permitted drunkenness in his yard or stable, lib would not bo liable under the Licensing Act. He referred the matter back to the Magistrate, Avitli a direction that the ground of dismissal Avas wrong ip <u*w,, but if the Magistrate , Avas satisfied that the respondent Avas upon the premises Avith a reasonable excuse he ought to dismiss the case. Seeing that the respondent had not opposed the appeal he would not allow costs.