THE RIGHTS OF A BOARDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 May 1916, Page 3

THE RIGHTS OF A BOARDER.

OKATO LICENSING CASE. AX INTERESTING DECISION. An interesting point concerning the rights of boarders was decided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., gave judgment in the case in which the police (Sub-inspector Fouhy prosecuting) proceeded against Alexander Sanson; licensee of the Stony River Hotel (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) for unlawfully supplying liquor to Michael Malono and Alexander Fraser on Sunday, April 10, when his licensed premises should have been closed. Evidence was taken last Thursday.

In giving judgment, the Magistrate outlined the, facts of the case. On the Sunday in question Malone and Fraser, with two lady friends, drove to Okato and pulled up at the hotel, with what object no evidence was given to show. Andrews, a lodger at the hotel, was on the verandah at the time, and, knowing both slightly, invited them to have some, refreshment. The licensee supplied five drinks, for which Andrews, the lodger, paid 2s (id. It was not contended that they came to Okato to visit Andrews at his invitation, or that he expected them. He was a lodger at the hotel, which was his place of residence. The Magistrate confessed that he was of opinion that as the men were invited in to the hotel for the express purpose of having drink they could not be considered his guests, but the cases bearing •on the subject all led in the opposite direction, that a lodger was entitled to treat his friends. He quoted several cases, particularly White v. Nestor, in which the facts of the case were that a lodger at a hotel, coining out of the dining room after breakfast, saw some friends in the passage adjoining the bar, and called them to the bar, where drinks .vere supplied, and Justice Richmond held that it was no offence. A licensee could, therefore, supply a lodger with drinks for his friends! whether they came to visit him as friends or for the purpose of obtaining drink. In the one case, therefore, there would be no conviction.

Regarding tlio second lot of drinks, the case was on a different footing. After the first live drinks hail ibeen supplied to Andrews, Malone shouted for three drinks,_ paying Is Od to Andrews, who took the drinks to them. In this case there must be a conviction. Andrews must be considered as the togent of Malone. The licensee was not bound to sell drinks to a lodger, but if he did lie must take particular care that he was selling to the right person. He knew that Andrews had shouted the first round, and although he ';new of the pernicious habit of shouting ho made nc inquiry to ascertain who was paying for the drinks. Had he inquired, and Andrews had told the truth, the licensee would have known that it was Malone and not Andrews. The sale was, therefore, to a man not entitled to it, nor oven to be on licensed premises at the time. As, however, Sanson, the licensee, had only recently taken over an hotel, ami it looked like a case of carelessness, he would only-inflict a penalty of Costs amounting to .€"> 14s Rd' were allowed, thought the Magistrate expressed surprise at h'raser and Malone ;iskin» (oi their expense?.