THE LICENSING ACT

Otago Witness, Issue 3335, 13 February 1918, Page 7

THE LICENSING ACT

RESTRICTIONS ON RESTAURANTS. Mr H. .A. Young, S.M.; delivered his reserved judgment in the case . against Arthur Rovvc and Mary C. Eeilly, in the City Police Court on the 7th. The text of the decision was as loiiows:—'-'The male defendant is charged with contravening section 11 (1) ,and the female defendant with contravening section 11 (2) of 'The Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917.' Tho material parts of this section aro as follows:—Subsection (1) : 'Any person (except the occupier or any member of his family dwelling on the premises or any of his servants) who, at any time while licensed premises are required to be closed, drinks liquor in any restaurant commits an offence. . . .' Sub-section (2): 'Any person who permits or allows any liquor to be drunk (unless by the "persons excepted in the last proceeding sub-section) in any restaurant at any time while licensed promises are required! to be closed commits an offence.' A restaurant, as defined by the Act, 'means any premises (other than premises in respect of which a publican's license or an accommodation license is granted under 'The Licensing Act, 1908') in which food or refreshments of any kind are provided and sold to the general public for consumption on the premises.' Premises 'includes house and place and extends to every room, billiard room, closet, cellar, yard, skittle ground, stable, outhouse, shed, or any other place whatsoever, belonging or in any other manner appertaining to such house or place.' Tho female defendant and her husband occupy and manage premises in which food is provided and sold to the general public for, consumption on the premises. The evidence for the prosecution shows that at 8.30 p.m. on the date set out in the informations police officers entered these premises and saw the malo defendant sitting at a table in the kitchen under the influence of liquor, in front of him'was, an empty beer bottle and also a glass containing a little beer with froth on it. He said he had just finished the beer. The female defendant, who was present, said that she had been informed that no offence was committed so long as the liquor was not drunk in the dining-room or sittingroom. Nothing was said about tho beer having been drunk before 6 p.ni. The defence is that the male defendant drank all tho beer about 4.30 p.m., that he then had liis tea in the dining-room, returning to the kitchen about 5 p.m. from which time until tlio police arrived he sat' at the kitchen table with the bottle and glass in front of him. lam satisfied on the evidence that the male defendant finished drinking the beer in the kitchen just beforo the police arrived, and that the female defendant allowed him to drink it there. The evidence shows that the male defendant was a lodger on the premises, and counsel contend that the Legislature would not have intended to prevent a lodger in a restaurant as defined dqnking liquor on the premises. In interpreting a Statute words importing tho singular number generally include the plural, and the question for determination is whether a lodger is one of tho occupiers of the premises. In Flindier v. Lombe (cas. tenip. Hard 307), the question for 4 determination was whether an occupier of premises who had lodgers therein was tho sole occupier. Lord Hardwidke said, 'No man can be occupier of a house but either by living in one of his own or in ono that ho hires; and a lodger was never considered by anyone as an occupier of a houso. It is not the common understanding of tho word; neither the house nor any part of it can be properly said to bo in tho tenure or occupation of the lodger.' In my opinion a lodger is not an occupier within tho meaning of section 11: The defendants-vvi'l. therefore, be convicted and ordered to pay court costs (7s) each." Mr Hanlon appeared for the male defendant and Mr Scwrr for the female defendant.