APPEAL DISMISSED.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 250, 3 August 1937, Page 6

APPEAL DISMISSED.

liquor supplied to guests. LICENSEE’S WIFE CONVICTED. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 2. The Full Court to-day dismissed the appeal in the case of Lillian Mackenzie v. W. J. Harper, which was heard on July 1., . T The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) and Mr Justice Ostler, Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Callan, and Mr Justice Northoroft. The decision was a majority one, Mr Justice Callan and Mr Justice Northcroft dissenting. The case was an appeal from the decision of Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M.j, Christchurch, who convicted Lillian Mackenzie, wife of the licensee of Tattersali’s Hotel, Christchurch, ox supplying liquor at a time when the persons to whom she supplied it were not entitled lawfully to be supplied with liquor. The facts were that the appellant supplied liquor to two men and two women who called at the hotel at 8.20 p.mi before going to a dance. The party of four was waiting at the hotel for the licensee’s son, who was to accompany them to the dance. A\ hen the police visited the hotel the appellant informed them that the men and women were her guests—friends o the family—and that in the absence of the licensee she was in charge of the hotel and had invited her guests to have a drink. The drink was not charged for, but was a gift intended for hospitality to friends of the family. The husband later approved of his wife’s action. The Magistrate found that the tour persons were bona fide guests of t e defendant and dismissed informations against them laid under the Licensing Act. He also dismissed an information against the licensee tor selling liquor during prohibited hours. The defence in the Magistrate s Court was that the defendant was entitled to have her bona fide guests at the hotel during prohibited hours, and, incidentally, to supply them with liquor. It was admitted that the decision of Mr Justice Adams in Waterson v. Low was an authority against the defence. The Magistrate said that ho had been compelled to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court, though he disagreed with it.