LICENSING ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20702, 27 April 1929, Page 25

LICENSING ACT.

THE SAVOY CASES. INFORMATIONS DISMISSED. In the City Police Court yesterday Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., delivered his reserved judgments in the cases arising out of the hospitality extended recently by the Scottish Societies of Dunedin in the Somerset Lounge to Major Macßae and Lady Macßae. Dealing with the first charge, that of allowing liquor to be consumed in a restaurant, the judgment stated that the defendant was charged under section 11, sub- . section 2, of the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917, with allowing liquor to be drunk in ft restaurant. Objection was taken by the defendant that the premises in respect to which the charges were laid were leased by a company called Savoy. Ltd., of which he was the managing director, and that no personal responsibility could attach to him. His Worship did not think that objection could be sustained. The section provided that any person who allowed liquor to be drunk in any restaurant in contravention of the terms of the section was liable. The defendant ias admittedly in charge, and had control of the premises in respect of which the charge was laid. and. ho thought, was clearly responsible if the facts showed an offence had been committed. Before that charge could be sustained it must be shown that the premises where the liquor was drunk were a restaurant. A restaurant was described in the interpretation clause of section 2, sub-section 2, as any premises (other than premises in respect of which a publican’s license as an accommodation house was granted under the Licensing Act, 1008) in which food or refreshments of any kind were provided and sold to the general public for consumption on the premises. Section 2 of the Act provided that section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1908, being the interpretation clause of the Act, was incorporated, and did not so form part of the said Act. In section 4 the word “ premises ” was defined as follows:—" Premises includes house or place and extends to every room, billiard room, closet, cellar, yard," skittle ground, stable, outhouse, shed, or any other place whntsover of, belonging or in any manner npertaining to such house or place. After reviewing the evidence, his Worship said the question resolved itself into one of fact, whether the Somerset Lounge came within the definition of restaurant, hearing in mind the extended meaning given to premises by the interpretation clauses of the Licensing Act. 1908. Did it belong or in any manner apertain to the rooms usually used as o restaurant? It would, he thought, be idle to deny that it was used iu conjunction with the restaurant. The fact that it was under the same roof, even if not attached to the restaurant, he thought, raised a reasonable presumption that u was part of the premises. 'He thought the onus was on the defendant to show that it was used for a separate and distinct purpose from the general purpose of the restaurant, The evidence of the defendant Barling was not disputed—that the general public was not admitted for the supply of food or refrshements, but it was let to certain definite and determinate individuals. It might well have been, as happened On the evening 'to which the charge related, that tneinbevs of the public were invited to attend by the society to which the lounge was let, but it was not the general public which was invited. It was only those members of the public who ' had a wish to meet and honour the guests of the evening ihey were invited for that purpose, and if they went and paid the admission price .they did so for that purpose, not for the purpose of eating and drinking. After careful consideration his Worship held that the Somerset Lounge was not a restaurant, and the information was dismissed. In the case in which Philip Barling and Leonard MTKendrick Satterthwaite were charged with selling liquor to Constable Turgis without being licensed to sell the same, his Worship said that each defendant was charged under section 195 of the Licensing Act, 1908, with selling liquor to one William Turgis without being duly licensed to do so. The two informations were heard together, and could be dealt with at the same time. On January 30 Constable Turgis proceeded to the Somerset Lounge. A reception to Major and Lady Macßae, given by the* council of the Dunedin Scottish Societies, was in progress. An advertisement in the daily papers stated that tickets at 5s could be obtained at the door. The constable was admitted on payment of ss. Fifty or sixty people were present, including the guests of the evening. He took a seat at a table, and later on whisky and pprt wine were placed on the table. The constable consumed three whiskys. During the evening the defendant Barling was present. The evidence showed that the defendant Barling agreed to give supper and service, no liquor to be supplied. A member of the societyy (Mr M'Kenzie) then arranged to provide liquor at his own expense if the committee in charge did not object. No objection was raised by the committee, and Mr M'Kenzie provided liquor for drinking the toasts. His Worship went on to say that he had carefully considered the'evidence for the defence. The liquor was a bona fide gift made by Mr M'Kenzie. As to whether the liquor so supplied remained the property of Mr M'Kenzie, or whether he made an absolute gift to the society he had come to tho conclusion that it was a gift. He found it proved, therefore, that the whisky and port wine wore available for consumption by the guests, and that the said liquor was consumed. Section 195 of theAct provided that no firm should sell or expose for sale any liquor without being duly authorised to sell tho same. This section was definitely limited to a sale, and the question was: Did the elements of a sale exist in the present case? The guests were supplied with liquor, but did they give anything—money or money’s worth—for it? Each guest paid ss, but that sum was to cover the cost of entertainment as arranged before any question of liquor arose. It was payment for a supper as provided by the defendant Barling. That was all that each guest or person attending paid for. Any liquor supplied was a gift either by Mr M'Kenzie or by the society. He did not think that the prosecution had established that any sale of liquor look place, and the charge against each of tho defendants must fail. The information would he dismissed. The charge of selling liquor On unlicensed premises was also dismissed.