HOTELS & THE STRIKE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8609, 20 December 1913, Page 8

HOTELS & THE STRIKE

THE CLOSING ORDER MAGISTRATE DECIDES AGAINST LICENSEES. The question as to the validity of the order issued by tho Mayor during tho strike for the closing of all hotels in tho city was decided yesterday when a reserved decision on the matter was delivered by Mr W, G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court. Tho cases of the several licensees were dealt with in the judgment. Tho licensee of tho Foresters’ Arms Hotel, Daniel Buckley, was charged with having kept his licensed premises open for tho sale of liquor on November 20fch, when they were directed to be closed in pursuance of section 284 of, the Licensing Act, under an order made by two Justices of tho Peace, Mr J. P. Luke (Mayor of Wellington) and Mr J. R. Palmer (town clerk). Two grounds of defence had been, raised by Air T. Young, who appeared for -the defendant; (I) That the order made by tho justices was invalid as it merely expressed tho opinion of tho justices as to the state of affairs in the city and was formed without hearing any evidence as to whether a tumult was expected to happen at or near defendant’s licensed premises on the date named in the order. In dealing with this contention the magistrate said that while it was admitted that a considerable interval of time elapsed between the making and tho coming into operation of the order, it was common knowledge that a strike of waterside workers was in progress in the city and that affairs generally were in a disturbed state, although no actual tumult had taken place for some days. Therefore, although there might be doubt as to the validity of tho order, yet His Worship did not think this court had jurisdiction to review it.

The second objection raised by counsel was that there was no evidence that notice of the order was properly served on tho defendant. “Tho answer to this_ objection/’ observed His Worship, “is that evidence has been given to show that the order was complete when it was issued by the justices, that a messenger levirered j* to the defendant on November 19th, and he admits receipt of it. I think these facts show that the order was sufficiently brought to the defendant’s knowledge, and as he admits keeping his premises open and selling liquor, ho must be convicted.” Accordingly a fine of 20s, with costs 7s, was imto the magistrate Mr Young said he did not think the defendant would think an appeal worth while. An interesting law point was involved, and 1 in case his client should desire to have the matter taken to a higher, court, counsel asked that security Mor appeal be fixed. The magistrate remarked that he was inclined to tho opinion that tho order of the justices should have been made as to each particular day. He would like very much to see an appeal lodged and a ruling given on the validity or otherwise of the order. Security for the appeal was fixed in the sum 'of seven guineas. /" ' , CITY HOTEL. In the "case of Joseph J. Firth, licensee of the City Hotel, .who was similarly, charged, Mr Blair (counsel for the defence) had, in - addition to (the objections raised by counsel in the previous’ case, argued that no evidence could be given to prove the order or its service, because no notice to produce had' been given to the defendant. - In the course of his judgment His Worship-Stated that the evidence given was admissible without a notice to produce, which was not necessary when the document to be proved was itself a notice that had been served on - the opposite party. Further, there was evidence that the notice was served on the defendant’s; wife and he became aware of it during the afternoon of November 20th, and in consequence his hotel was practically closed the following day. ' The detpndant admitted, however, that several men were admitted and supplied with liquor on November 21st. His Worship held that a conviction must be entered and imposed a fine of 20s with costs 7s. EMPIRE HOTEL. In the course of a verbal judgment given in the case of Fanny Pool, licensee of the Empire Hotel, who was similarly charged. His Worship said that the points raised in the previous judgments were applicable to this and a conviction would be entered. A fine of 20s, with 7s costs, was inflicted.