Bottle Store Is Not Bar, So Judge Holds.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18016, 29 November 1926, Page 9

Bottle Store Is Not Bar, So Judge Holds.

LICENSEE OF PROVINCIAL HOTEL WINS APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

Because the liquor was sold from a store used only for the sale of liquor in bottles and for consumption off the premises. Mr Justice Stringer allowed the apneal of George Isles against the decision of Mr H. T. Lawry, S.M., convicting the appellant of a breach of Section 36 of the Licensing Amendment Act of 1910.

“ Appellant is the holder of a publi- , can’s license in respect of the premises j known as the Provincial Hotel,” said his Honor, in giving judgment to-day, “ artd he employed a female in the bottle store of such licensed premises, such female not being one of the persons mentioned in sub-section 3 Of sec- . tion 36 of the Act of 1910. The bottle j store is described in the case stated as being fitted up with a counter and , shelves, and on the shelves is alcoholic liquor in sealed bottles for sale for con- J sumption off the premises. There are j no beer engines or taps, or glasses or sinks in the store, and bottled liquor only is sold therein, and it is sold only for consumption off the premises. “ The Magistrate held that the bottle store was a private bar and stated that in his opinion the fact that the liquor sold there was for consumption off the premises onlv. made no difference, as it was the place of sale and not the place of consumption which was the determining factor. He therefore convicted the appellant and from that con- > viction the present appeal is brought, j “ The real question at issue is as to 1 the meaning of the word ‘ bar ’ as used in section 36 of £he Act of 1910,” said , his Honor. “Apart from any statu- • tory definition the meaning usually at- j tributed to the word ‘ bar ’ is a place i where liquors are sold and, as a general ’ rule, consumed. “ The bar of a public house is, as we know, strictly speaking, the counter over which liquor is served, and it has i come to be extended to the space in ! front of it where the people standi The | word has a perfect!}- well understood \ meaning. The definition given in the Imperial Dictionary of 1 bar ’ is. inter alia., * the enclosed place at a tavern, inn, or coffee house, or the like, where . liquors, etc., are served out.' “ This generally accepted meaning of the word ‘ bar ’ appears, however, to he modified for the purposes of the | Licensing Act by the definition there given of ‘ public bar’ or ‘ bar,’ which is | that it means 4 any room, passage or lobby in any licensed premises open immediately to any streets, etc., where-

in the public may enter and purchase liquor.’ After careful consideration, however, his Honor said that he had come to the decision that the word “ bar ” as used in section 36 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910, was not in- ( tended to be used according to the : strict definition of “ bar ” in section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1908. It appeared to him as gathered from the language of section 36 of the Act of 1910 that the object there in view was the prohibition of the employment of females in bars in the orduiary acceptance of that word, viz.: Places where liquors are sold exclusively or mainly for immediate consumption, with a saving clause in favour of certain specified individuals, and of females who had been employed as barmaids before the passing of the Act of 1910. In his opinion it was not intended to extend the prohibition to all places where sales of liquor were made, merely because such places came within tne definition of “ public bar ” or “ bar ” contained in the Act of 1908. That, however, would be the effect if the Magistrate’s ruling were upheld, for all places “ where the public may ertter i and purchase liquor,” must according to the definition be a bar of one sort or the other where such places were ; licensed premises in respect to which any of the. various kinds of licenses i were granted under the Act. This, to his mind, would make the section under consideration perilously Pear to an absurdity, and would go far be}*Ond what, was necessary to remedy the supposed mischief, which, he thought, was the emplov’inent of barmaids in j open bars where liquors were sold for consumption on the premises. “ For the above reasons, though not without doubt, I have come to the conclusion that, as the liquor in the case, under appeal was sold from a , store, which was used only for the sale of liquors in bottles, and for consumption off the premises, the conviction. was wrong, and the appeal is therefore allowed. I make no order as to costs.”