JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF " LICENSED PREMISES."

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5429, 13 April 1907, Page 4

JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF " LICENSED PREMISES."

An appeal involving the question of what is included in the term "licensed premises" was heard by Mr Justice Cooper at Auckland on Saturday. Constable Reddek, of the Thames, appealed from a decision of Mr S. Bush, S.M., in the case of the Police v. Victor Bowlder, who was charged with having been found on the licensed premises of the Cornwall Arms Hotel when such premises were required by law to be closed. The Hon. J. A. Tole, for the 1 appellant, said the respondent admitted having been in the yard of the hotel, but denied that he was there for the purpose of committing a breach of the Licensing Act. The magistrate dismissed the case upon the ground that the yard was not included in the definition of _" licensed^ nremiges! > _undejr; the licensing laws,- and Th&t the Rouse was all that was specified in a license. Mr Tole argued that the magistrate was obviously wrong, for although the Act of 1904 dealt with licensed premises, but gave no definition, lie overlooked the fact that the Licensing Act of 1881 gave a clear definition as to what " licensed premises " meant, showing that a yard was included.

His Honor said he need not go farther than the New Zealand Statutes ■to allow the appeal. He agreed with Mr Tole that the Act of 1881 and its definition of " licensed premises " applied. This definition included "every room, building, closet, cellar, skittle ground, stable, outhouses, or any other place whatsoever appertaining to such house or place." When a license was issued by the Licensing Committee it included necessarily all the matters which were referred to in the definition of section 4 of the Act of 1881. It would be absurd to say that if an innkeeper permitted drunkenness in his yard or stable he would uot be liable under the Licensing Act. He referred the -matter back to the magistrate with a direction that the ground of dismissal was wrong in law, but if the magistrate was satisfied that the respondent was upon the premises with a reasonable excuse, then he ought to dismiss the prosecution. Seeing that the respondent had not opposed the appeal he would not allow costs.