THE DUTIES OF AN INNKEEPER.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1150, 25 April 1912, Page 22

THE DUTIES OF AN INNKEEPER.

An important test case came before the Holborn Licensing Sessions in which Mr J. MacConnell objected to the renewal of the license of the “Jack Straw’s Castle” Hotels Hampstead, on the ground that he had been refused tea and similar refreshments during prohibited hours. Mr MacConnell contended that the public had the right to be supplied with commodities other than intoxicating liquors at licensed hotels or public-houses during prohibited hours, irrespective of the distance they might have travelled. At the first hearing Mr MacConnell, in stating his case, said he opposed the renewal of the license on two grounds —first of all under the duty of an innkeeper;. and, secondly, under the ordinary duty to' supply food and non-in-toxicating liquors, whereby the licensee in refusing unreasonably to do so necessarily jeopardised his license. In this case, he said, the licensee failed to fulfil his duty on Sunday, October 1, at 5.30 in the afternoon. In answer to the chairman, Mr MacConnell said when he tried to obtain the refreshments he was not a traveller. The case was adjourned until. March 5, and on that day Mr T. Carthew, who appeared for Mr MacConnell, said no pronouncement had been made on the subject by any licensing Bench, and for this reason many licensees who were willing to serve those who were not travellers were deterred from doing so on account of the wording of the Act. The innkeeper was bound to supply reasonable refreshment to any one. Was it an offence to supple a non-traveller during prohibited hours ? Section 62, sub-section 1, of the Act said that it was an offence for any one to be on licensed premises within prohibited hours “unless he be a servant of the house, a member of the family, or otherwise is not acting in contravention of the Act.” The fact that no proceedings had ever been taken in a case of this sort was good reason for supposing that there was no objection to selling non-intoxi-cants during prohibited hours. His client, who lived some two miles from Jack Straw’s Castle, had called there with his wife for a cup of tea, and was told he could not be served. In order to make the case clearer he had called on two successive occasions to receive a definite assurance. The chairman said there was no obl’gation to supply other than travellers, and they did not feel inclined to make

a ruling in the case. The license was therefore granted.—London ‘ L.V. Gazette.”