“BONA-FIDE GUEST” IS NOT DEFINED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18465, 17 May 1928, Page 4

“BONA-FIDE GUEST” IS NOT DEFINED.

LICENSEE TO PAY FOR SELLING AFTER HOURS. “11l all definitions regarding admission to hotels, the term, 4 bona fide guest,’ has not been defined,” said SubInspectot- Fitzpatrick, in a case in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The case was one in which Frederick Arthur Cook, licensee of the Templeton Hotel, was fined £7 10s and costs for selling liquor after hours, and Hector Codings, Frederick Kent, Harry Morris and Ray M’Ewen were each fined £2 and costs for being on licensed premises after hours. It was claimed by Mr Twyneham, who appeared for Cook, Kent,- Morris and M'Ewen, that these men were bona fide guests of the licensee, and had been driven from a dance hall to the hotel in order to partake of the hospitality of the licensee. Codings was not an invited guest, and should not have been on the premises. In summing up, the Magistrate (Mr C. R. Orr - Walker, S.M.) stated that it was clear and admitted that the three men had gone to the hotel to get a drink. They, in common with Codings, would be fined £2 and costs; Regarding the case of the licensee, it was admitted that liquor had been supplied to the three men other than Codings. Under the Act there was the presumption that the liquor had been sold, which presumption must be satisfactorily removed by the evidence. If the iiquor had been a gift, there would be no offence, but after looking at the surrounding circumstances of the case the Court was not impressed at all with the evidence of the licensee that the liquor had been a bona fide gift.

“ Liquor Not a Gift.” The Magistrate continued that he could not see why the licensee should have taken the trouble to drive the men from the dance hall to the hotel, and there open the bar for a drink, at about eleven o’clock at night. The licensee could not complain if he could not impress the Court with the whole bona fides of the transactions. The Court could not accept the statement that the liquor was a gift, and that left the presumption that it had been sold. The surrounding circumstances were that the licensee had driven to and fro from the hotel to the dance hall during the evening. In opening the case for the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Fitzpatrick said that there was a dance in the Templeton Hall on the evening of April 24. The licensee used his motor car to make two. trips from the hotel to the hall, and on one occasion bottles had been conveyed. The bar had been seen lighted up, and three men had gone in. They had given a certain pass or secret knock, and the door had been opened. The police followed the men in. and found the licensee in the bar. The police sergeant asked the men why they were on the premises. The men were not given an opportunity to reply, as the licensee immediately stated that the men were his guests. Police Wetot In.

Sergeant Murray stated that he and a constable had kept the hotel, under observation. Three men went into the right-of-way and remained there for a short time before leaving for the dance hall, about a quarter of a mile away. An hour later, at 9 p.m., the bar was lighted up and a car came from the rear' of the hotel towards the dance hall. At 10.15 p.m. a motor car drew up at the hotel, the door was opened, and three men went in. They remained there for only three minutes, and upon their coming out again witness distinctly heard a jingle of bottles. The car was driven off in the direction of the hall. During the time that the car made its first trip to the hall, eleven pedestrians and two motor cars called at the hotel. The car returned at 11.20 p.m. A man came along in the oppd!*ite direction, and as he peered through the bar window witness could see the licensee there. Witness and the constable went into the hotel. The licensee said that the three men were his guests, and that he had invited them from the dance hall to have a drink. The fourth man, Collings, had not been invited. Constable England corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Frederick Arthur Cook said that he had taken to the hall two bottles of beer. The defendant Kent was an assistant barman, and Morris and M’Ewen were friends of witness. Kent had responded to a knock at the door, and Collings and the police came in. The other three men were guests of witness.