THE BARMAIDS ACT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10679, 28 January 1913, Page 1

THE BARMAIDS ACT.

i « TEST CASE IN WELLINGTON. CHARGES. AGAINST PUBLICANS. [Per Press Association-.] WELLINGTON, January 27. Tho much-discussed clause passed by tho Legislature last year with a view to effectively prohibiting the employment of unregistered barmaids in licensed houses was subjected to legal analysis in tho Magistrate's Court before Dv A. M'Arthur, S.M., this afternoon, when John Thomas Levett (licensee of the Adolphi Hotel), John C. Mason (Panama Hotel), M. H. Robertson (Commercial) and Margaret M' In tosh , (Royal Tiger) were charged with employing unregistered girls in or about a bar or private bar in their respective houses. Mr H. H. Ostler conducted tho case for.the police,• and Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for all the defendants. The case against Levett was first taken and a plea of " not guilty" was entered. Mr Ostler asked that tho information should be amended so that one offenc© only would bo charged. Ho proposed to deal with the case as it related to a "private bar," and asked that the words "bar or" should be struck out. Mr Wilford said that before this was done he dosircd to ask whether there 'was power to amend an information if there was no offence alleged in the first instance. He admitted thnt iif an alternative offence was charged there would be right to amend. In this information he claimed that there was no offence under the Act. He submitted it was impossible for a bar or private bar to. exist. The only bar defined in_ tho Act was that_ referred to in section 4 of the Licensing Act of 1908. If"no offence was alleged then he could not be put on 'his defence. ' " Bar " under the Act meant a place where the public oould enter and purchase liquor and opening directly on to the street. What could a " private bar " mean when a "bar" was defined as "a place, which the public could enter and opening directly on to the street P" The Magistrate: You mean it cannot exist?

Mr Wilford: There is no such thing. Mr Ostler submitted tliat the point ! raised was not sound in li\w. Ho claimed that each information did allege an alternative offen.ee—(l) Employing unregistered girls in a public bar, and (2) employing unregistered assistants in a-private bar. His Worship ruled that two offences were charged, inasmuch as the words ! "bar-or private bar" were used. Mr Ostler then explained that the information was laid under the following section of the Licensing Act: — I " Aft<Sr the first day of June, 1911, i save as provided by this section, no female fihall be employed in any cap-j acity in or about the bar of any licons- ] ed premises at any time while tho bar is open for the ; sale. of liquor." He i i claimed- that a " private bar " was a j placo for the salo of liquor not opening directly on to a public street. Briefly he explained the history or what are noAV known a.i "privalo bars." In 1893 it was made illegal, in consequence t oLji wairo of ,t©mneraucareform, to hav« Ec-a • thifi'v - on'd bar in any licensed house. Then £-omo 'keen legal man discovered that the definition) oi a' "bar" under the Act would not cover a place or room which -did not " open directly oti to a public street." The result was that some hotels now carried on three to. five distinct) hotel brifiinesses } to all intents and purposes, for tho payment-of' one license fee. •. Sergeant Kelly said he' visited a private bar at the Adclphi Hotel on January 12,. when a young woman named Alberta.Plum was assisting. She said she-was not registered, that she was not entitled'to be registered, and that she had ! be:eh employed in tho hotel for eight x or nine months. , Mr,. '.-Wilfoi'd: It was not a public bar under the Licensing Act? Sergeant Kelly: No, it.was a circular bar divided into two, one part public, the other private. In what respect is it private ?—lt is not private. The only " piibiic bar " in the place is'marked' " private.'' The bar in which the lady in question was was not piivate at all ?—Not in, -the, sense that,: you mean. The .drinks cost more there than they do in the other bar (the 4d bar). Then the bar that is supposed to? be " private " is public, and that which is supposed .to be public is marked "private"?—-Yes. Mr Ostler: Then they ought to be prosecuted for having two public bars. In a brief summary Mr Ostler reminded the Court that no unregistered females were to be employed (under tho Act) in or, about bars unless they were " the wife, sister or daughter of the publican." . At tHTs. stage the hearing was adjourned till to-morrow.