AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XV, Issue 892, 11 April 1907, Page 21

AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

An appeal involving the question or what is included in the term ‘ licensed premises” was heard by Mr Justice Cooper in banco last Saturday morning. Constable Beddek, of the Thames, appealed from a decision of Mr S. Bush, S.M., in the case of the Police v. Victor Bowdler, 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 appeared for the appellant, and the respondent was not represented. . Mr Tole 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 premises” under the licensing laws, and that the house was all that was specified in a license. Mr Tole argued that the Magistrate was obviously wrong, for although the Act of i9°4 dealt with, licensed premises, but gave no definition, he overlooked the fact that with the LiCensing AcH 6f 1904 was incorporate the Licensing Act of 1881, which 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 Statistics 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 that he would not 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.