LIQUOR EXPOSED.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18705, 3 August 1932, Page 6

LIQUOR EXPOSED.

LICENSEE RESPONSIBLE. FINE OF £5 IMPOSED. HAMILTON HOTEL CASE. In the case in which Janies Henry Cheshire, licensee of the Hamilton Hotel, was charged a fortnight ago with, keeping |his premise® with exposing liquor for sale and with keeping his premises open after hours reserved judgment was delivered by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court this morning His Worship stated that on May 16 last a sergeant and constable entered the Hamilton Hotel. The doors leading from the street to the public and private bars were closed. The police entered by the main entrance, passing through the lounge and went into the private bar at 6.10 p.m. They found a number of men standing at the bar with glasses and bottles before them. There was no Indication that they were about to leave. The licensee said he warned the barmaid in the private bar at three minutes to six. He said he closed the public bar at six o’clock and was aware that there were persons in the private bar, but he did not see them out as he was called to the office. The defence was that in view of his instructions to his servants not to sell liquor before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. the licensee could not be held liable for the act of the barmaid if she sold liquor after hours, and that he could not be held responsible for any other act or omission by her that constituted an offence under Section 190 of the Licensing Act. Section 190 of the Licensing Act prohibiting the sale of liquor during closing hours imposed an absolute responsibility upon the licensee and if the offence was committed by the servant of the licensee and was within the general scope of his employment the licensee was responsible and could not escape by proving that the general authority was limited by private instructions, however definite and express.

His Worship quoted several authorities and added that there was “a vicarious responsibility on the licensee for the acts of his servants.” The question was whether the liquor was exposed to view under circumstances which led to the conclusion that it could be had by discreet persons on paying for it. It was a reasonable conclusion that it was. Defendant was convicted and fined £5 with costs 10s for exposing liquor for sale.

The other charge of keeping the licensed premises open after closing hours was dismissed.