LIQUOR CONSUMED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22422, 17 November 1934, Page 11

LIQUOR CONSUMED

CHARGES FOLLOW SMOKE CONCERT RESTAURANT OWNERS IN COURT A case of considerable interest to owners of restaurants, with implications affecting the general public as well, was heard in the Police Court yesterday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. As a result of the action of those conducting a smoke concert in Lake’s restaurant, the proprietor and his wife were charged, with allowing liquor to be consumed on the premises. A charge is also impending against a number of those present at the smoke concert of drinking in a restaurant after hours, while the chairman and secretary of the body conducting the concert are further charged with selling liquor without a license. it was contended by the defence that the restaurant ceased to be such after 7 p.m., and became a social hall under registration by the City Corporation, and that the interpretation placed by the police on the Act under which the prosecution was brought differed entirely from that generally accepted by restaurant proprietors. Yesterday only the case against the restaurant proprietor and his wife was heard. The charges were that Walter James Lake and Flora M'Donald Lake had, at a time when licensed premises were required to be closed, permitted liquor to be consumed in their restaurant. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the defendants. Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said the defendants conducted a restaurant at the corner of Dowling and Princes streets. On the night of October I, Sergeant Stark and Constable Tullock visited the premises, and in the dining room they found about 100 people. A number of glasses containing liquor were on ! the table, and a number of those present admitted that they had been consuming liquor. It appeared that this was a smoke concert, conducted by the Licensed Victuallers’ Cricket Association, for which admission was charged. Lake himself was not present, being at home ill, and Mrs Lake was in charge. It was not disputed that Ross and Cahill, who were the chairman and secretary of the association, hired the hall for £l, and it was also admitted that the association had been supplied with 75 gallons of beer free of charge, most of which had been consumed during the evening. Both Mrs Lake and the members of the party were quite frank about the matter, and Mrs Lake had stated that she was under the impression that she was quite in order in allowing the liquor to be there. The senior sergeant added that there had been no drunkenness or rowdyism. Evidence along these lines was given by Sergeant Stark and Constables Tnlloch and Robertson. When the name of Thomas Joseph Gray was called as a witness, Mr J. P. Ward, as the counsel appearing for the men who will later be charged with drinking in the restaurant, pointed out that this was one of his clients. He asked that a certificate under the Evidence Act be given later to this witness, who would claim indemnity when his charge was brought up. After Gray had given his evidence, he was provided with a certificate that he had made a true and faithful discovery of evidence, and in reply to a question by counsel the magistrate stated that it was obvious that, on the production of the certificate, any charge that might subsequently be laid against Gray arising out of the prosecution must be dismissed. Mr White said there was no evidence against Lake. He was not on the premises, and counsel suggested that the charge against him should be dismissed. The magistrate: I will reserve that point. Mr White went on to say that Lake’s premises wer,e closed every night at 7 p.m., and were never used as a restaurant after that hour. He contended that the place was a restaurant until 7 p.m., and after that its registration as a social hall came into operation. It was the general practice to interpret the law in this way, and not in the way in which the poliee interpreted the Act. This was a general practice throughout the country, and counsel suggested that, if the other defendants whose cases wore coining on later were guilty, then “all of us have committed many breaches

ourselves.” The Act under which the prosecution was brought was a wartime measure of 1917, of which a considerable portion had been obliterated. Why this particular section had been retained, counsel said, he could not imagine. At this stage hearing of the case was adjourned till Monday.