ILLEGAL LIQUOR SALE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17231, 10 April 1930, Page 11

ILLEGAL LIQUOR SALE

LICENSEE’S POSITION APPEAL FROM CONVICTION (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, last night. Arguing that ho 'could not be field responsible for an early morning sale of liquor made without Ins authority by a general hand, Albert Edward Neville, licensee of the Alexandra Hotel, appealed in the Supreme Court tins morning, before Mr. .Justice Ostler, against his conviction lor selling liquor when bis licensed premises were required to he closed. The conviction was recorded by Mr. F. K. Hunt, 8.M., on March 7 last and a fine of £5 Is and costs was imposed on Neville for an otl’ervco allegedly committed on January 21 last. Neville gave as the ground for bis appeal that lie did not sell the liquor and that it was supplied by Charles Clienerv, a general hand, without authority. He further contended that Clienerv was not a person for whose acts or defaults he could be held responsible under the Licensing Act. Mr. V. R. Meredith, who appeared in support of the conviction, stated that before 8 o’clock on the morning of January 21, Sergeant Thompson was passing tho Alexandra Hotel in Federal street, when he heard the cash register ring. The hotel door was ajar and he went, to tlie bar and found a man who bad come, off an early morning train, who was about to leave. On the bar ■counter was an empty bottle of beer, which Chcnery admitted lie had sold to tho man. A lodger was also in the room and alongside him was a bottle of stout. When told of what had happened, Hie licensee did not deny the sale, but said that Chcnery had no authority to serve the stranger. Chcnery, however, served in the bar at lunch times and between 4 and 6 o’clock in the evenings. His Honor: The case is largely one of law. as the facts are admitted.

Mr. R. W. McVeagli, who appeared for the appellant, said the whole question was whether the magistrate drew the proper inference from the evidenco tendered to him. Evidence would ho given defining tlie status of Chcnery. The importance of cases of this kind to any licensee was that should lie seek to obtain a certificate of fitness with regard to going into some other house the conviction was a blemish against him. Chencry was not a barman in any sense of the word. In evidence, Chcnery said that bis duties consisted of cleaning out the bar, polishing, dusting, and doing general work about Hie hotel, lie assisted m tho bar during lunch hours and at rush periods in the evenings.

Mr. Meredith said it was clear that Chencry served the lodger and stranger because lie thought the latter was going to book. The inference to be drawn from these facts was that he had authority to serve lodgers. Therefore, if a man had expressed or implied authority to serve lodgers the licensee was liable.

Mr. McVeagli explained that Chencry was instructed not to sell liquor before tho hotel was opened. This fact was borne out in evidence and. if it was found in favor of the licensee, then the appeal should he allowed. Judgment was reserved.