TEMPORARY BAR PERMITS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13888, 27 April 1907, Page 3

TEMPORARY BAR PERMITS

A PUBLICAN FINED.

At the City Police Court yesterday moraine, before „Ir H. Y. Widdowson, S3l.,'Edward i Uddy, the lioonsee of the Kensington Hotel, was_ charged on two informations with exposing beer for salo at a placo where lie was not authorised to do so. Defendant pleaded " Guilty " to tho first information, the sccond being withdrawn.

Station-sergeant King urosccutcd, and Mr T. K. Sidey appeared on behalf of the defendant. Hi J. C. Stephens watched tbo proceedings on behalf of tho owners cif tho premises.

HvSidev said it was really much open to question whether there had been any offence whatever, but, rather than take up on attitude straining the point defendant hr.d resolved to plead guilty. He thought tbis waa a case where the magistrate was cntitlrd to exercise bis powers, under section 87 of tbe Justices of tbe Peaeo Act, by dismissing the case. Tlw nmgistrato was no doubt familiar with the circumstances. The piece of ground oil which the temporary bar had been owcted was owned by tbe landlord of tho hotel, who bad granted tbe use of it to the licensee for this purpose. There was not even a, fence between tho premises in course of crection and tho temporary bar, and a passage existed between the two places. If there was a breach ft all it must bo of tho slightest character. It would have been difficult lor tbe licensee to have erected a temporary bar on tho yard attached tci tho'promises in course of erection, on account of tbe street v/ideuing operalions thai had been carried out for one thing, and tho licensee was practically compelled to go a little beyond the scclion in> order to secure accommodation. At the Umo the plans for the new built»inj were put bofore the Licensing Committee it was thought that the new building would be completed to enable tho bar to bo opened within tho six months for which tho permit was granted. Th/» present licensee was not even awtvre that a temporary permit was required to carry on operations until it iva3 pointed out at the lust quarterly moeting of the committee, and ho was not in the hotel when the permit was applied far. Counsel submitted that a slight technical breach had been committed. Tho Magistrate: Tho present Ucensee {,'ot bis transfer about a week before tbe expiration of the permit, Mr Sidev: Yes; he took possession a week or so provionsly. Tho Magistrate: He romaiued in possession of tho temporary premises for two months? Mr Side)*. Yes. The Magistrate: It seems to me to be tin extraordinary thing tb«it the bar was not installed in the' new building whon it was partly ready. Mr Stephens said tho contractor and architect would say that this was owing to various reasons—to the extremely bad foundations at this site for one thing. Delay was also caused by tho drainago connections not being completed, A.s a matter of fact, an extension of time should havo been applied, for, but thin was not done owing to a pure oversight. Station-sergeant King said tho jjeriuit had been granted on June 25. and expired on December 25. The business had been sold to defendant on December 20—3 days bcfoTe tho expiration of the permit.

Evidence was given by tho arciiilcct {Percy Lang) and M. Hayes, 011 behalf of the owners.

Tho Magistrate said this v.'as not a ease lor au endorsoment of the license, but at {.lie s&i/lo time he thought thcro had been negligence in si lowing- the license to he jeopardised by delay in obtaining an extension of the pcriuiU It was inconceivable that when a permit wus grafted the terms were not Liquor had been foW in the temporary bar for two or three months after tho permit lind ruu out. He considered that a bar should have been titled up temporarily in tho new premised. Defendant would be convicted, and fined £2 and costs (7s).