SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22205, 7 March 1934, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

IN DIVORCE .'.'"''" TCESDAT, MIBOH 6. .. ■•;.' i, ■ ■■: ■•' ■ j .. ;■, 'j-;i (Before his Honor Mr justice Kenn«4y.) DECREES ABSOtCTB. . Decrees absolute were granted in th» following cases:—Stanley Llewellyn Peacock v. Margaret M'Laren Peacock; Catherine Evelyn Caddir v. > IVank Gordon Caddie. : ~•..■'':-:."■.. < ■BENFBLXi r.,BENFBLIi. . Husband'* petition tat divorce on tht ground of separation.-' - "' : '" -'•''-:;. Mr B. A, Qttelch appeared tot th« petitioner, Stanley Arthur Benfell, of Dunedin, plasterer} Mr 0. L. Calvert for the respondent, Vera Benfell. . partly heard case, tftei which his Honorgranted a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months.

IN BANCO

WROBLENSKI r. PARNELL, Case on appeal from the decision of a magistrate. Mr F; B. ipiieired for the appellant, Constable iWrdWattsW, of Ophir i Mr. J. paterson for the respondent, Charles Parnell, licensee, of the Shamrock Hotel at Ophir. Mr Adams said the appeal was by an informant in the lower 'court against the dismissal of air information. The information charged the defendant, Charles ParnelL that ha "did kee| .ppm his licensed premises tor the sale of liquor at a time whep sucji premises were •required by law to be dosed." At 1 o'clock on the morning of August; 545. 1933, the constable saw a light in tfca bar of the hotel. At the same time a man named Daly was coming toward* the hoteL Daly went to the fcack of the hotel and stood by a door. Witnesi followed him and asked him: his business. Daly said he was waiting tor a parcel. V iShorUy afterwards a man named Auld, from inside the hotel, qpened the dopr :and handed Daly a parcel, three bottles of beer. The constabla IWid to him, -" Are? you supplying Daly with ; beer at this time of the night," and Anld repliedV '** He asked ine to get it tor him." At this time the landlord was in the hotel asleep. Tha question .was whether the licensee was responsiWijfor the act of another person,, that act being done in his absence, or, as in this during his sleep. baited how Auld had got into the bar; and the reply waa that he had a key. Counsel contended that the possession br'the key gave to AUld access to the liquor at any time and was the most" characteristie mark of a general authority to sell liquor. '"The' :: beer- : 'Was supplifid.'.'by ;Auld "■i&" DiUy> - : . and the premises were opened by Atild for the supply of';the beer. No money was Been to pass. There was, ,*ounsel contended,! notr merely a(supply of liquor but also a sale of liquor to .Daly. < Mr Paterson said he would not rais* any objection oh«that point. * Mr Adams went on to speak of Attld's authority to sell, and contended that where an employee of a license* was entrusted with a key, or given other means, of access, to stocks of ; liquor; and had some specified Authority in the selling of liquor, that was sufficient t». render the hotelkeeper responsible for the acts of his servant. 'Generally, Auld was a miner, working under the Unemployment Board, and had been living at the. hotel as "a boarder.. In ; lieu of paying for his board he was in the habit of doing certain work for the licensee. While described as , a boarder, therefore, he was really an employee working for his keep during th* time he was not employed by the Unemployment Board. In the morning, before he went to work, he acted as a. rouscabout; in the evening he supplied boarders with liquor, generally ,;«* was in charge- of the hotel when the licensee was away. He did not occupy the status of a barman, but assisted the the licensee and looked the hotel when the licensee was absent. He re- , ceived no payment for his work beyond his keep. *The licensee was a taxi driver and a musician, and his absence from the hotel in the evening was frequent. This showed a substantiality in the employment of Auld in the work of the hotel, and he had, a; key to:enable him to carry out his duties. ~,,,,hit was contended that upon the facta theii* was an inference of law to the effect that the licensee wa* responsible. Mr Paterson said hii submission was that the question depended upon the scope of Auld's authority; Instead of paying for his board. Auld,wa* in *h* habit of doing certain work for the licensee, including the cleaning out of the bar. That explained the possession of the key. Auld was not employed as . a barman, but assisted by serving'as a : barman in the daytime, when requested to do so, and by looking after the bote! when the licensee; was absent- It was a legitimate inference,: as stressed by the magistrate,, that. Auld had no authority at all during the of the licensee in the hotel, Auld could not be held to be the agent for Parnell tor the sake of liquor. % His Honor reserved Ms decision,