LIQUOR AT CABARET

Evening Post, Volume c, Issue 82, 3 October 1940, Page 13

LIQUOR AT CABARET

MEANING OF "RESORT"

APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE

ISLAND BAY CASE

An appeal against a decision of Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., convicting William Albert Wilson, manager of the Crow's Nest Club, Island Bay, of using the cabaret as a place of resort for the consumption of liquor in a no-licence ,' area, was heard in -ne Supreme Court today by Mr. Justice Johnston, who reserved his decision. The appellant did not appeal against a conviction for allowing liquor to be consumed in a dance hall. Mr. A. J. Mazengarb appeared for • the appellant, and Mr. H. R. Biss, with him Mr. W. R. Birks, for the police. In the Magistrate's Court the appellant was charged on three informations in respect of each of t,,0 days, May 11 and May 25 last. He was convicted on two informations relating to each day, but informations alleging his permitting liquor to be consumed in a restaurant were dismissed. Mr. Mazengarb said he could not contend that the appellant had been improperly convicted of permitting liquor to be drunk in a dance hall, but he submitted that a conviction for using the premises as a resort could not be entered, as it v. as based on the same set of facts. No offence had been established, because the place was not kept or used as a place or resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor within the meaning of section 37 (1) of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910. The Magistrate had read into the section a meaning which did not exist. It was contended that in order to make a place a resort for the consumption of liquor the dominant! purpose of the people resorting to the j premises must be the consumption of j liquor—if it were not the sole purpose it must at least be the dominant purpose. If the conviction were upheld it would mean that an offence would be committed by any golf club or bowling club in a no-licence area where members had some liquor. By a similar process of reasoning any' county council .that ended its proceedings with afternoon tea would be a place or resort for the consumption of afternoon tea, instead of the tea being merely incidenta' to the business. His Honour said that, reading the judgment casually, the Magistrate did seem to have substituted the minor for the major. Mr. Mazengarb said that, in addition, absolutely innocent people might be prosecuted, as every person found in a "resort" was liable to a fine of £5; yet there was dancing by all. supper by all. and the consumption of liquor ; only by some. Many reputable persons, including members of Parliament, had signed at the club, and they would be liable to conviction. His Honour: Well, why not—assum- j ing that the place is being used as a resort? i Mr. Mazengarb submitted again that; if the appellant had been propei-ly convicted for the dance hall offence he had been improperly convicted on the "resort" charge. If it were ruled otherwise Wilson would be convicted twice on the one set of circumstances. j NO-LICENCE AREA. j Mr. Biss submitted that the section ;of the Licensing Amendment Act i aimed at the prevention of the evil lof having liquor in a no-licence district; it was directed at the evil that : had apparently been taking place I every Saturday night at the cabaret. lat the restriction of any congregation |of persons consuming liquor in- a no- | licence district. . His Honour referred to Masterton. ! and said that if any person had liquor 'of his own he could drink it. But ;, what about a chess club where the [members took liquor to the house j where they gathered? Mr. Biss replied that it might well be an offence if a practice were made 'of it. To use the words of the Privy j Council, when discussing an Ashbur- ! ton case, "What is it that one can do jin New Zealand that is not an offence against the Licensing Act?" Probably many offences were committed in the j Dominion against the letter of the Act, ! but the offenders were not prosecuted. The evidence in the present case showed that the cabaret was an incorporated club, used by the members for the consumption of the liquor they took there—there was no suggestion that the management supplied the liquor. To apply the test of human nature, would the majority of the persons go to the cabaret if they knew they would not be allowed to drink the liquor they had with them? They resorted there because they knew they could drink it.