AFTER HOUR HOTEL TRADING

Chronicle (Levin), 3 October 1947, Page 4

AFTER HOUR HOTEL TRADING

COURT CHARGED EOLLOW JPOLICE VISIT As the- sequel to a poliee visit on the Levin Hotel, Oxford Street, at 7.55 p.m., on September 12, the licensee, barman and eight others were charged- in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, today with offences under the Licensing Act. Charged with selling liquor after norma! trading hours, Ernest Frederick Ward was convicted and fined £1 and barman, Alfred Henry Meads, on a charge of supplying; was convicted and fined £5. Court costs in each case amounted to 10s. Appearing for- both defendants, Mr. B. H. Rhodes, Otaki, said that the barman had opened the bar at the request. of three lodgers. There was al'so. in the bar two others, who fiaimed to be guests," of one of the lodgers. The licensee had gone out for a few minutes on business, leaving the barman to attend to ':he requirements of lodgers. Had ,he returned and seen who was- in the bar, the licensee would have sorted them out, clearing out those not entitled to be there: • In regard to the barman, Mr. Rhodes said he had had four years' experience at his job., and this was his first offence. In view of the circumstances he asked for a modest fine. On charges of being on licensed premises after hours the following were convicted and fined £2, with court costs o.f 10s in each case: D. G. Morgan, B. W. Nicholls, P. J. McLeavey, P. Morgan, C. A. Morgan and T. Hannan. On similar charges D. K. Simons and A. P. Barnett, painters, of Levin, pleaded not guilty. For defendants, Mr. N. M. Thomson said that though both admitted being on the premises when the police arriyed, they had been invjted there by a lodger, whom they had met by appointment to discuss some work they were undertaking for him. The lodger was starting in business in Levin, and was staying at the hotel. There was no othef place where he could have interviewed the men. During the discussions he had asked them if they would like a drink and in view of the fact that there was, as in many hotels' these days, no service in the lounge, they had gone into the bar. It was not a case of "friends foregathering," as the two men were strangers to the lodger. Commenting, Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., said he knew the difficulty today in regard to service in lounges', but the bar part of the premises should be closed after hours. It might be a technical offence in this case, but the defendants had not been guests or had dinner with the lodger. In any case he questioned the right of a lodger to be served with liquor in the bar. In convicting defendants, the magistrate said he would not I impose a penalty in this case.