"TEMPERANCE BAR"

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8738, 21 May 1914, Page 5

"TEMPERANCE BAR"

PROSECUTION FAILS NO BREACH OF LICENSING ACT, Press Association.. INVERCARGILL, May 20. To-day Mr Hutchison, S.M-, dclivorrryl judgment in the case of Bingham ami Coleman. It will be remembered that the police, acting upon an opinion expressed hy the Crown I,aw Office, pro--■coded against W. V r . Coleman under 'tion 37 of the licensing Act. The iormatkm charged defendant with .uoping and using the Club Hotel as a place of resort fur the, consumption or liquor. The magistrate said: ihe facts are undisputed. Defendant is landlord of the Club Hotel in Inveienrgill, which is a no-liccnso district under the Licensing Aids. One of the rooiiiu of the hotel is fitted up as a so-called temperance bar, "’here nonalcoholic liquors are obtainable, This i,.ir is the resort of many persons who, b, ••'■■■ with them alcoholic liquor wluch| tiiey consume there. Tlio defendant supplies -cu'-tomers with glasses and soda water and such-liko beverages, and charges them 3d for the use glass and 3d for each bottle of soduj Water or other similar beverage sup-’ plied. The information is laid under, section 37 of the Licensing Amend- 1 ment Act, 1910. That section enacts ;l _(1) No building, room, or other pre-', inisos in any no-liccnso district shall : lie kept or used as a place of resort for tho consumption of intoxicating liquor on these promises; (2) if any promises are kept or used in broach of this sec-i tion as a place of resort for the consumption of liquor the occupier of the same and every person having or talc-' ing part in tho carp, management, or l control of tho same are severally liable!, ■to a fine not exceeding £2O lor every] day on which tho promises are kept orj used. Tho evidence sufficiently shows) that this bar, which is part of defend-i ant’s promises, is a resort of numbers of porous whoso main object in many j instances at all events may tie said with-, out breach of charity to bo the consump. tion of alcoholic liquors which ft thoy bring with them. Further, the evidence shows that this use of the bar is Hot occasional, but frequent. The question which the present prosecution raises is whether this constitutes in the defendant an offence against section 37. I am of opinion that it does not. If section 37 could be read as making the permitting of a place to bo used as a resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor the offence I agree that upon the evidence defendant ni”- ’ ’uivo been convicted; but the sec hull not read so, and cannot bo so \ •■..strued. The distinction which the Lice 1 ’ : ng Act draws between that class of offence which consists in permitting certain things and that _ other class of offences which consists in doing certain things is well established, and there is no ground for confounding one with tho other. There the thing prohibited is keeping premises for a certain purpose. It is, I think, the purpose for which the defendant keeps tho bar and not tho purpose ■which other people may have in coming there which is tho essential point. Now it is not onlv suggested that defendant keeps this bar for the _purpose of the consumption of intoxicating liquor, but such a view is expressly repudiated hv tho prosecution. I am therefore of opinion Ijljat the information must bo dismissed.