HOTEL BARS IN STRIKE TIME.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1927, 9 December 1913, Page 8

HOTEL BARS IN STRIKE TIME.

WE MAYOR'S CLOSURE; ITS LEGALITY QUESTIONED. SIX LICENSEES CHARGED. r A number of cases arising out of tho period during which tho Mayor of Wellington ordered tho city hotels to close wero called in tlio Magistrate's Court yesterday. Several of these were against licensees. Mr. W. G, Ridded, S.M., was on tho Bench. Tho first license© charged was Mrs. Margaret M'intosli, proprietress of tho Royal Tiger Hotel, in Taranaki Street. Tho defendant was charged; (1) With keeping her licensed premises open for tho saio of liquor on November 22, on which day hotels had been ordered to bo closed by two Justices of thol'eaco; (2) with selling liquor; (8) with exposing liquor for sale. Thcro was also a charge- of selling liquor against a barmaid employed in tlio hotel. A plea, of not guilty .was entered. Inspector Hendrey conducted the prosecution, and Mr. T. M. Wilford defended.

Mr. J. p. fjiike (Mayor of Wellington) was tho first witness. Ho stated, in conjunction with Mr. J. It. Palmer (Town Clerk), lie had issued an order closing tho hotel. He had issued the order becauso ho thought that tho troublo was spreading from tho waterfront. The Royal Tiger and the hotels ill its vicinity had been closcd on several occasions previously. . Inspector Hendrey: Von had reason to expect that a tumult might happen? Witness: Most assuredly; otherwise I should not liavo acted. In answer to Mr. Wilford, witness stated that, on November 22, the localities in which he had expected- troublo had been in the vicinity of tho Pier Hotel and the Royal Tiger Hotel. Tho order, however, had been sent to pll hotels, becauso of tho generally disturbed condition of tho city. John It. Palmer (Town Clerk) stated that tho Mayor and himself had issued tlio order in their capacities as Justices of the Pence. Tile Royal Tiger had been first closed on November 19, but another order was issued for November 22. To Mr. Wilford: They bad had very good evidcnco that disturbances had taken placo in tlio locality, and had good reasons for believing that such disturbances would recur, Mr. Wilford: What was your reason for anticipating trouble? Was it becauso riots had already occurred? — "Yes." Mr, Wilford: Then tho hotel was closed becauso of previous happenings? —"Yes." Urnest G. Cooper, sanitary inspector, in tho employ of the City Council, stated that ho had served tlio notico on Mrs. M'lntosh.

To Mr. Wilford: Tho notice,was in an ungummcd envelope. Ho was sure that the notice which he served on November 21 referred to tho Royal Tiger Hotel, and that ho had not, by mistake, given Mrs. M'lntosh a notico referring to another hotel. Tito Pollco Entrance. Senior-Sergeant- Dew, of Mount Cook Police Station, said that about 1.20 p.m. on November 22, he had visited tho Royal Tiger Hotel. Tlio doors wero tliem eiosed. Ho knocked and was admitted by a servant girl. Ho proceeded towards the bar, and saw a barmaid (Maggie M'Randal!) and a man named Alexander Fraser. The inaii gave an address ..which was afterwards proved to bo false. This man had two bottles of beer under his arm. Witness said to tho barmaid: "What does this mean?" She replied: "He purchased this yesterday, and camo in to get- it." Mrs. M'lntosh then camo on tlio scene, and said: "Maggie, why do you do it? I'vo got enough trouble already!" Mrs. M'lntosh then said to witness: "I gave tiio girl tho kc-ys to get a drink for someone having lunsh." The barmaid mado no reply to Mrs. M'lntosh.

To Mr, Wilford: His reason for going to tho hotel was tlmt ho had been informed by tlio officer commanding tho spccial police that on 6 of his men wan supposed to ho in the hotel, and he went to send the man back to the barracks. Lav/ Feints Raised in Defencc, 3lr, Wilford then addressed tho Court. Ho stated t-liat- the notice which had been served 011 airs, M'lsii tosh was a notico under the Licensing Act, and not under the Justices of tlio Peace Act. That tho notice had been served under sections 284 ami 285 of tho Licensing Act could' not be. disputed —t'ho fact was stated in the summons. Sections 40 and 47 of the Justices of tiio Peace Act gave justices tho power to clobo hotels under certain circumstances. These provisions, however, had not been invoked, but they were almost the same as those of section 284 of tho Liccitsiua Act. The power to closo hotels given by the Licensing' Act was a special _ power, and it was plain that, if justices purported to eloso a hotel where tho circumstances mentioned in tho Act did not exist, tho order would bo a nullity. 111 any prosecution, therefore, it must bo shown that thoso, circumstances existed. It was not alleged that there was a riot or tumult on Novcmben 20. The notico purported to ho based 011 tho fact that a tumult- was expected at or near tho licensed premises. It- was, therefore, clear tnat it- must bo shown that a tumult was expected to happen ou November 22 last, and that it was expected to happen at or near tho licensed fironiisos mentioned in tlio charge. Unless that was proved tho order to close was a nuliitv, Assuming, however, that the order was velid (Mr. Wilford continue!.!), there was a good defence. Section 285 provided that "any person who kept open tlio premises lor tlio sale of liquor" during the closing hours, shall bo liable to a fine not exceeding £50." What a licenfico must not do, therefore, when such a noti.-H) had been served was to keep open for the sale of liquor during tho timp specified in the order. "Having" premises open for the sale or liquor was not tho same as "keeping" them open. Section 100 of the Licensing Act dealt with all offences during tho time, that tho premises are to be kept, cksc-d. Several offences were detailed in the section, but in Section 285 there was only one on'ene-o —that of "keeping" open. Jiv 110 filroleh of language could Section 285 be hob! to mean that the licensee was subject to tlio samo obligations and liabilities generally as apply to the closing hours of j licensed premises under Section 1!)0.

There were three reasons, 31r. AVilford continued, for ilia contention that, Section 190 did not impose penalties for an offence roJiimiltod 'during a timi» in which a house was ordered to ho closed iiy two Justices, hut.' only "during the lime at which licensed premises lire, directed to he closed hy, or in pursiii;v;eo of, this Act"—(l) It was plain that Clause inn referred to fhe times generally when houses new directed to ho closed hy, or in pnrnmnro of, t1)o Act. It plainly referred to tlie genpral provisions for closing, and not to closing on a_ particular occasion. {2) The expression "licensed premises arg directed to ho closed" showed that it only referred to closing time referring to all licensed premises, The nlural was used. It could not ho read as if worded: "Rvery lieen_sed_ person who (hiring the timo at which liis licensed premises arc bound to be closed under any provision of this Act." (3) Another reason, and a conclusive one, was that Section 285 pro. "ides for tlio penalty itself for tic breach

of closing under that provision, i.e., either a hue not exceeding £30, or tho same penalties as for keeping open at unauthorised hours (Section 190). A general penal provision was overridden by a particular one- Therefore tho Ronoral provision in Section 190 could not be invoked where thero was n special provision as in Section 285. The result was, therefore, that LHo only offenco that conUl bo committed in broach of notice to close was "kecjjhsf; ttpoli for sale of liquors," If tho notieo was valid,! and tlio ilcoiispn during tho tinio. specified kept open for the sale of liquor, then silo had committed an offence and could bo convicted.. Was the Hous-q "Kept" Open? If tliis argument was correct, cotiii&el further submitted, tlio only information which could succeed would bo the one of "keeping open." Tlio two oilier illformations against her of selling and. exposing for ealo, and tlio _ mformatiAi ngnin&t the barmaid for selling, must lift dismissed. The question I'iicii Was~--i)iil Mrs, M'Jntflsh "keep" her plaro open for tho sale of liquor? Hie first point was thai she did not "keep" her place open at nil. This Was proved by Serjeant Dew, wlio swore that all the doors were closed and locked. At most sho opened thorn somebody knocked. This was not keeping the place opoin l'roof of sale was not an offencc. If tho person got lawfully into_tho placo it > v.ns clear that a Bale to him not an offence. In fact, no matter how ho gotthere, there was 110 offence unless ilia premises wero left open for the sale of liquor. Decision was reserved.