THOSE "PRIVATE BARS."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1679, 20 February 1913, Page 6

THOSE "PRIVATE BARS."

TWO MORE CASES. \ ANOTHER LICENSEE FINED. At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Dr. jVl'Arthur, S.M., Mrs. il.. .Macintosh, licensee of the Koynl Tiger Hotel, and J. C. Mason,. licensee of the Panama Hotel, were charged with having employed unregistered barmaids in or about the "private bar", of their hotels. informations, had,been worded to read "bar or private but'they were amended (with the permission, of the Court), by the striking out of the words "bar or," to read as stated in the first instance. Counsel for the defendants, strongly objected to the amendment. Charge Dismissed./ Mr. H. H. Ostler represented the Crown and Messrs. T. M. Wilford and R. A. Singer (the latter of Auckland) appeared tor tho defendants. Mr. Wilford said that respecting Mrs. Mackintosh case the barmaid (Miss Florence Emhia Cotton) had .'applied to tho Labour Department for registration btfore the date of the summons, at wliinh time she was ' entitled to registration. -However, her certificate of registration did not reach her until sotlio days later. Mr. Wilford asked his Worship to dismiss the case. ' His Worship: I want to know the girl s position? Mr. Wilford: She is now registered and can serve in any bar. . Mr. Ostler: i don't ask for' a conviction. : ' ' ' ' His Worship then dismissed the information. . • The Second Case. ' The case against J. C. Mason, licensee of the Panama Hotel, was then proceeded with. ! Mr. Ostler said that in the recent case against \he licensee,of the Adelphi Hotel, ! in which case his Worship had entered a ccinviction, Mr. Wilforu ' (the defendant's counsel) had given notice of appeal, but had not gone on with'the matter. Mr. Ostler understood that Mr. Wjli'ord's reasoh was that the bar in the Adelphi was not a typical example of the "private bar" because the person serving behind it could walk out' into tho public bar. A "private bar"' was a room in which liquors were sold, , but whicn did not open immediately ou to the.street. Mr. Wilford had' asked that the Panama Hotel should bo taken as a typical example'of a hotel having a "priyatfi bar." ,Ho understood thnt th« .''facts';" were not 'disputed, and he presumed that his Worship would decidc t'iio caso in tbji; same way'as he had decided the Adelpni cuSe, leaving it to the defendant to appeal to ■the Supreme Court to settle the question of the definition of "privato bar." ' Mr. Wilford took the'same objections as ho'lifid nidde in the Adelplii case—• that no offence was disclosed, and .that the room in question .was not A private, bar. / . -.'.' . , „ , His.Worship convicted Mason and fined him £2, with Hosts.' "county for appeal . was fixed at £7 75..