Licensing Law

Horowhenua Chronicle, 1 August 1913, Page 2

Licensing Law

TILE LEVIES' HOTEL CASE

An important point in licensing law is concerned in the case of Police v. Sultan, heard last month. Judgment was delivered in the following 'terms (at Levin yesterday, Thursday) by Mr Povnton, S.M.: The accused was charged with unlawfully opening his licensed premises for the sale oi li([Uoi during (dosing hours. In this case defendant s counsel did not call evidence, but i piloted authorities to show that the charge should be dismissed, but intimated his mienlion to <«o into the merits of the ease Liter, if the Court, after perusing the authorities, decided that there was a case to answer. The facts of the case on th•vidence submitted for the prosecution are: 1. Two rounds of drinks wen' •served from the hotel oi the accused to members of a (dub. vhose rooms adjoin, but are in-' I nut of the hotel premises. j 2. The drinks were taken ihrough an enclosed and cover-d-in passage, which crosses ihc ;ight-01-way between th-: 1 Club ,-ooms and the hotel. -'!. The first round of drinks, ;iv in number, was ordered ■hrough a small telephone in he (dub room, which communicates with the hotel, and is ised for giving such orders. The drinks, some of which wen vhisky, were paid for by two oi he (dub members. 4. The time at which the tirsi inter was given through thelephone. and the drinks de~ ivered, is uncertain. 'I he cvilence raises a reasonable doubt vhether il was befoie or alter ! 0 p.in., and the accused is enit led to the bench 1 of this loubt. The second round o< Irinks, some ol 1 hem being 11iskv, was sei v"d from Whe iiotcl after 10 p.m. ti. Although it was not prov >d who ordered the second he if 'drinks, or who paid for them, ir whether they were a gif• from the licensee, the Licensing \et, section 20(1, places the nuts (d' disproving a sale on the iceused. 7. The charge is, however, me of keeping open licensed H'einiscs for the sale of liquo: .vhen they should be closed anc aot for sidling after hours. I lie iHelices are entirely dishnel. A licensee may .-ell alter (dosing hours and not keep his iiouse open, and conversely may "<eep open wilhoul being proved ;o have sold lii|iior, but be convicted of the oiVence <d' keeping > pc 11. In the case ol Wichard v. Sheehan, M.Z.E.8., ■> S.( .. p. S7. rc 11e< 1 on lor the dclenec. a number of men were drinking on the premises, but the premises were kept closed. 'Uncharge was the same as in tin present case lor keeping open. . Ward -1. said "The in format ion should have been Jor selling liquor within prohibited hours, of which there appears to _ be ample evidence." "The conviction is Jor keeping the house open during' Unprohibited hours, and the evidence shows that the doors were idosed. "if |he doors of the house are shut and no ingress or egress of customers sliown, J can i see liow the publican can be convicted of keeping his house open." A similar case was that of Boole v. Hoalv, 1 X.Z. Ua/.ctle L.IL, P- 2o!). In the case ol Jeltrev v. \\ cave,-, 2 0.8., 1N!)!J Vol J 1., p. Mi), it was laid down that "There must be means oi access to customers to the interim ol' the pi einises from the outside." (I rant ha in J. said p. 1 "It is I lie safe course lo take the narrower vjew ol the ineanjiig of the words 'Open or keep open," and that unless tinouter door is left open or a,jar in order that people may come in we ought not (t lie outer door being shut and fastened) to hold thai the house is kept open for the sale id' intoxicating liquors merely because there are people inside. Bruce -I. said p !•")! "In my opinion,,if the doors are really closed so that a person outside could nol come in the premises are not open wiiliui the meaning of Section (J of the Licensing Act, I(Si I. jt is really a (|Uestion of means of access to the interior of the premises from the outside and if there are no such means then the premises are not open or kept open within that section. ' This side-door opening from the hotel into the elosed-in passages was used by the barmaid only on this occasion. Mo one else went in or came out of it. It is apparently not a door used by the public, and leads into the back part of the house and not to the bar. The cases on the point show that the facts would not support a conviction for unlawfully opening premises for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. The case will be dismissed. J". W. l'OY.\ fox, S.M., July 2(lih, 191,'!.