LIQUOR FOR BOARDERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 259, 6 November 1906, Page 4

LIQUOR FOR BOARDERS.

I THAMES HOTEL KEEPERS CHARGED. _r A _r tbe Thames Police Court yesterday W. Mooney, licensee of the Wharf Hotel was charged with exposing liquor for sale on the evening of Sunday, October 14, and also with having his licensed premises open for the sale of liquor on the same date. Mr. Mays prosecuted and Mr. Clendon appeared 'for the defence. Sergeant Darby and Constable Berry gave evidence to the effect that on the evening in question they saw four men standing at the bar slide. Mrs. Mooney was inside the bar. 'Four gh__.es'of beer were standing on the shelf of the half door, and one of the men had a partly empty glass in his hand. It was admitted by the witnesses that three of the four men standing at the slide were boarders, and there was no evidence to show that the fourth man (who was not a boarder) was drinking. For the defence it was contended that no liquor had been sold to others than boarders, in support of which a large number of witnesses gave evidence. Mr. Mays maintained that there was a clear breach of the Act, as the outer door was open, and the liquor exposed for sale. He did not press for a heavy penalty, as it was merely a test case to show that it was illegaffor the licensee to have the bar open and liquor exposed although only intended for sale to bonafide boarders. Judgment was reserved. This morning Mr. Bush delivered judgment. His Worship came to the conclusion that an offence had been disclosed, viz., that liquor had been exposed for sale to other than boarders. He was satisfied that men other than boarders could have purchased liquor had they so desired. They were all close to the sbde leading to the bar. He therefore held that liquor was exposed for sale. The amendment to the Act of 1904 placed additional onus on hotelkeepers, who should therefore be doubly careful. He convicted defendant and imposed a fine of 40/ and costs. Considerable interest was taken in this case. J. Montgomery, licensee of the Neavesville Hotel, was charged with having exposed liquor for sale on the night of October sth. Constable Berry deposed that on the night of October 5 he visited Neavesville, and on arriving at Mr. Montgomery's hotel shortly after 11 p.m., found the front door open, and on entering the house he saw the licensee in the bar, the slide of which was open; and there were four men in the passage, who stated they were boarders, and admitted having just had drinks. Evidence was given for the defence by the hcensee and two of the boarders to the effect that the front door of the house had been shut and locked by the licensee at ten o'clock, that they had then gone into the diningroom to partake of supper, after which the licensee had invited the other four to have a drink before retiring for the night; that two of the boarders had afterwards opened the front door and gone outside, and on re-entering the house had neglected to close the door. His Worship held that no breach of the Act had been shown, and dismissed the case. I