Liquor on the Premises

Hokitika Guardian, 23 April 1921, Page 4

Liquor on the Premises

RESTAURANT KEEPER CONVICTED. WELLINGTON, April 19. Reserved judgment was delivered today by Mr Hunt, S.M., in a case in which I). E. Dustin was charged under sub-section 1 of Section II of the Sale of Liquor Prevention Act with aliowjnk liquor to ho consumed in a lcstaurant at a time when licensed premises were required to he closed. The facts were that on February 16th tho upstairs hall of defendant’s premises in Cuba Street was let to the Chemists’ Association for a. social meeting for the sum of fills, and Dustin supplied eatables and crockery at a certain rate. The pro inters of the social provided alcoholic refreshment. Defendant contended that the hall was not used as a restaurant, but merely for social evenings. Defendant was prosecuted in August last on a similar information, and Mr Evans, S.M., in dismissing tlu> case, held that the room was not part of tho premises. Since that decision tho section had been considered by Mr Justice Cooper in the ease Brett v. Till, on an appeal from the Magistrate’s decision. The Magistrate convicted a Hamilton restaurant keeper on a charge of allowing alcoholic liquor to he supplied after 6 p.m. in a restaurant. In that case the room had been lot' exclusively for social purposes, but with this difference that as the restaurant had been closed to the general public from 3.30 p.m. in order to prepare the social, from that, time tin* premises ceased to be a restaurant. Mr Justice Cooper did not agree with this, holding that as the police had fiower to enter if necessary by force under sub-section 3 of Section 11 the restaurant remained a restaurant whether it was closed to the general public or not. Today Mr Hunt said that in the present ease he could not hold that Dnstin’s upstairs hall did not “in any manner appertain to a restaurant.’ Tie thought it did, for it was used and kept as part of defendant’s business. -

Defendant was convicted, but as he had had a Magisterial decision in his favour last time, Mr Hunt decided neither to fine him nor order him to

pay costs. Mr Myers for the defendant intimated tha he would appeal the decision. Security was fixed at £7 7s.