HOTEL BOTTLE STORE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17147, 24 September 1926, Page 2

HOTEL BOTTLE STORE

HELD Til ill: A HAIL MAI! IST HATE’S DECISION. AUCKLAND. Kepi ember 22. In u reserved decision given to'-day, .Mr. 11. P. Lawry, 5.. M.. ruled thai an Hotel bottle store is a bar within the meaning of the Licensing Art. and a female other than a registered barmaid may not therefore be employed in vi bottle store. The derision arose from a prosecution ’ of George lies, of life Provincial Hotel, in which Mr. .1. 11. 1 plniin represented defendant. The magistrate said that in this case the defendant was charged with employing a female m or about the bar of ins licensed premises sat a time when the liar was open for the sale of liquor. Ity consent, the iui'ormaiiou was amended to "private liar’ lor the word "har. 'i’he ' tacts, which were proved m admitted. wok* tii.it the woman on ih<date in question was employed by i Indefendant tu sell liquor in scaled hollies in a bottle store. The bottle store was iittod up ;n some respects as an ordinary bar. as it had a counter and shelves and on the shelves were sealed bottles of liquor for sale, .but it differed troll) the usual bar in that there were no beer engines, taps, glasses or sinks. Duly bottle liquor was sold, for consumption off the premises. Tile’person employed to sell therein was hot one* ol those excluded by Section 36 (If, by the provision of subset' lion 3 of tile Licensing Amendment Act. 1910. as amended by Section 2 of tinBarmaids Registration Act. 1912: LI tile store was either a public or a private bar an offence had-been committed. The defendant admitted that the store was such that if liquor was sold there for consumption on the premises the store would be what was known as a private bar. but be contended that as liquor was sold for* consumption oft’ the premises only it was not a private bar. and consequently the restriction of Section 36 did not apply. In entering a conviction, the magistrate said that he could find nothing -which excluded from ‘bar’’ places where a purchase was made only of liquor for consumption off the premises. In the case in question, the store was a room ■containing a counter or bar, behind which liquor for sale was kept. The store was therefore a ‘‘bar” and it must therefore he a private of public bar. The distinction between those depended only upon whether or not it was opened immediately on to the street. The fine Was fixed at £5 15s in order to allow of an appeal being made.