The Licensing Act.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 79, 5 April 1895, Page 3

The Licensing Act.

_♦ AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.. Last week at Nelson an appeal was beard by Mr Justice Richmond on the . following facts : Mr Brougham .was licensee of the Post Office Hotel, Motueka. A man named H. Stanton had a whare more three miles from Motueka. On one Sunday morning he started to his home near Motueka. On the way he meftwo friends, and having to pass the hotel he went in and called for drinks. Upon his asserting that he was a traveller drinks wore were supplied to the three men. The money was supplied to Stanton by one of the friends (Chant). Upon proceedings being taken the licensee was convicted ' and fined £2 by the Justices—hence the present appeal on the contention ,that the.drinks-baff been supplied to \hom fide travellers, and that there had ' been no offence within the meaning of the Act. ... . This case had been heard in the Motueka Magistrate’s Court before the - present respondents—Messrs Hurst- ... house, Boyes, and Everett, Justices of the Peace. Mr Harley for the appellant cited a number of cases to show that Stanton in' the present case was a bona fide traveller, though be had only travelled three miles, though for pleasure or any other purpose,- and further that if Stanton was a bona fide traveller he had a right to treat his friends. His Honor, without' calling upon Mr Fell for the respondents, said no case had been cited showing that the liberty allowed to lodgers in a licensed hotel to entertain their guests extended also to travellers. A person lodging in ah hotel might reasonably be expected to have visitors and to entertain them with liquors, as in the case •ited and relied upon in the present appeal (that of Pine y. Barnes), 20 Law Reports Q.B , page 221, where a lodger had a decanter of wine upon the table find ; had allowed his guests to consume therefrom. That was not an offence against section 155 of the Act. But a traveller was very different in His Honor’s opinion. Unquestionably it would completely defeat the whole policy and purpose of the Act if a traveller were allowed to call and shout for anybody he might find standing about the door of the hotel. His Honor was clear that a distinction must be drawn (regarding the right to purchase for the consumption of other people) between lodgers and travellers, and that in the latter case the privilege was strictly confined to the traveller himself. In the case before His Honor in Wellington he admitted that a bona fide lodger was allowed to entertain any guests in a private room; It was in that case clearly proved that the lodger paid the money, and His Honor was not prego further than that decision. Probably when the Legislature were acquainted with the facts of that case steps would be taken to amend the Act. His Honor held that a lodger could call in anybody, but a traveller had hot that privilege, and upon that • riding His Honor affirmed the conviction in the appeal now before him. He would not go into the question as to whether. Stanton was a bona fide traveller or purchaser—there was considerable doubt about the latter, as the money for the drinks had really been found by Chant. Upon the whole, his Honor was clear that, the conviction must.be affirmed. As to the contention that the words “ although purchased before the hour of closing and consumed afterwards,” that could not be maintained. The generality of that enactment prohibited the consumptihn of any liquors upon premises during the Lours of closing except in specified Costs were allowed against the appellant (£5 ss), together with costs out of pocket.