LODGER’S POSITION.

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 19991, 15 September 1936, Page 3

LODGER’S POSITION.

LIQUOR AFTER HOURS. YOUNG MAN CONVICTED. , LICENSEE LATER ACQUITTED. A young man was placed in an unusual position in the Police Court at Hamilton yesterday when, after being convicted of a licensing offence during the morning session, his credentials as a lodger at the hotel at which the breach was alleged to have been committed were virtually upheld in the afternoon by the dismissal of the charges of opening_and selling liquor preferred against the licensee. The only redress he could request at the close of the second case, on account of his having pleaded guilty to the count against him in the morning, was to have liis name suppressed.

“Some of the afternoon editions of the newspapers may have gone to press, but I will make an order,” observed Mr S. L. Patterson, S.M. “Had you not pleaded guilty you might not have been convicted.”

That the fact of signing an hotel register is not sufficient in itself to establish the bona ildes of a lodger was a point advanced by SeniorSergeant G. 11. Lambert in the morning when the young man pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely representing himself as a lodger so as to obtain liquor from the Frankton Hotel. An alternative information was of aiding abetting the sale of liquor after hours.

Mr Lambert said that at 9.40 p.m. on August 8 defendant had entered the Frankton Hotel and booked a room, for which he paid 4s. He had immediately asked the porter for 15 large bottles of ale. and when they were supplied he had taken them to a waiting car. Mr Lambert pointed out that to be a lodger it was necessary for a person to be really living and* staying on the premises, and defendant had not been to Ills room and had possessed no luggage. Defendant stated that he was unaware that he was committing un offence and had been assured by the barman in the hotel that he could take the liquor from the premises. A fine of £l, with 10s costs, was im posed. Charge Against Licensee. Arising from the same set of circumstances which hail resulted in the young man’s appearance, the licensee of the Frankton Hotel. Cyril Lans downs Nieholls (Mr North) entered a plea of not guilty to charges of -selling liquor and of opening the premises after hours. To Mr Paterson, the defendant in the earlier case stated in the witnessbox that he had intended taking the liquor to his home. At the time he had no luggage in the car, but was under the impression that as a lodger he was entitled to take the ale from the hotel, where he intended to return and spend the night. “The porter was carrying several parcels of liquor and was with two men when 1 intercepted them,” stated Constable G. F. Atkins. The previous witness had stated that he was a lodger, and the visitors’ book indicated that he iiad hooked a room, the man, as a lodger, was entitled to be supplied, and it was not his (Nicholl’s) concern what he did with the liquor. Mr North said that Nieholls, who had taken rigorous steps to comply with the Licensing Act, had supplied the liquor in good faith to a lodger. He had no knowledge of the fact that it was to he removed from the premises and had been given I lie impression that it was being taken lo the lodger’s room. No Attempt at Secrecy. No ultempi had been made lo remove the liquor seoivliy. counsel said, and knuw’ng.: Lai Ihe ha!-,vr luil Invn a’h- <1 a runm In 1 had acini in uoo.l ia*.!li. lie was nul not aware of tlu-

use to which the liquor w’ould be put. A lodger in law was entilled to purchase even larger quantities of liquor and, if lie chose, remove them from the premises. After hearing the evidence of Nieholls, his wife, and a porter who had supplied Ihe liquor, Arthur Alfred Smith, the magistrate dismissed both charges. There was nothing in the Ad, he said, which controlled the disposal of liquor purchased by a lodger, and lie accepted the young man’s explanation that he intended to slop Die night at the hotel. The evidence bail showed that Nieholls was fully alert to his responsibilities. The young man had established his credentials as a lodger, and lliere was not a greal difference in principle between Ihe hold prcm.scs or in some uliie-