THE TWO BARS QUESTION.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1836, 20 November 1874, Page 2

THE TWO BARS QUESTION.

The following judgment was delivered by the Resident Magistrate of Dunedih on the matter of having two bars in a house under the Licensing Act:—

His Worship delivered judgment in regard to the charges preferred against Job Wain, Louis Court, George Dodson, and John Sibbald, of having more than one bar in their licensed houses, contrary to the Licensing Ordinance, 1873. The following is his Worship's judgment :— "I have looked into thig. question, and have come to the conclusion that the prohibition in the Licensing Act, 1873, as to more than one bar being on the premises, only applies to • public bars.' These are defined to mean and include 'any room, passage, or lobby in any licensed publichouse open immediately to any street, highway, or thoroughfare, wherein the public may enter and purchase any spirituous or fermented liquors.' The plain meaning of this definition is that the room, passage, or lobby where the bar is placed must open to the public street without anything betweenit and the street; the word ' immediately' signifies literally without a middle, that ig, without anything between or intervening. If, therefore, a bar is situated in a room, passage, or lobby which does not open immediately to the street, it is not a public bar in the term of the Act. I find that in none of the cases brought before the Court is the second bar so placed as to be fairly within the statute'as a public bar. Wain's second bar is in a parlour opening into a side passage; Lyon's second bar opens into a concert-room; Dodson's opens into a side parlour; and Court's is not on the ground floor at all. The only one about which there is any doubt is Sibbald's, at which there is a door opening immediately into High-street; but ifcis stated that this door has not beea in use since the Act came in force, and on the day mentioned in the complaint the only access was from a lobby. lam therefore unable to convict in any of the cases, and the informations will be severally dismissed. It might be urged that there are good grounds for proceedings under the Act of 1874, which expressly prohibits any additional bar, whether public or not, without the! consent of the Licensing Court, and without the payment of the licensing fee; but as the parties have not yet had an opportunity of making application for sanction to the Licensing Court, it is reasonable they should be permitted to maintain their position in static quo ante until after the next meeting of the Licensing Court. (That is to say, while I will not convict any of those parties who for the last six or eight months have had bars in existence, I do not mean to say that a right or commission is conferred on anyone to open a bar now. It is only those parties who have had the second bar since 1863 to whom these observa^ tions apply.) In dismissing Sibbald's case along.with the rest, I am not to be held as pronouncing any general opinion as to the lawfulness of any of the theatre bars. All the length this decision goes is that none of the bars are ' public bars | within the statute. I may ad&ythat the police have acted rightly in h; bringing the matter forward for the decision of the Court. .