Barmaid'S License.

Hokitika Guardian, 31 May 1922, Page 3

Barmaid'S License.

! WAS IT CANCELLED? > AUCKLANDN, May 27. j An interesting matter cam£ befon ■j Mr Poyuton, S.M., nt I lie polid ' (tiirt, when Ernest Page, licensee n i •‘:e Royal Hotel, was charged nit] , I aviug employed an unlicensed barmaid ' and Nellie Goiss was charge!! with having worked as a barmaid, not being ' a person entitled to be so employed. Senior-Sergeant Rowell stated that ihe matter was very involved and very important. The defendant Goiss was ii I barmaid, and had been a barmaid foi j leven years to the knowledge of the i police. A certificate of registration bad ' been issued to tier in 1911, but was never taken out. She left for Australia in .lime, 1911, and did not come hack until I Did. During her four ! years’ absence she had been employed in various hotels in Australia. Her 1 certificate lay in the Labour Office at j Auckland until her return to New Zealand. When she applied for her license on her return it was refused. Mr Inefer (for Miss Goiss) : How could it lie refused? She was already gaze*ted. Counsel produced “Gazette” of February 19th, 1914, in which Miss Goiss was gazetted as a barmaid. Sergeant Rowell: When she got back to New Zealand her certificate was cancel led. Mr Infer: Wo know of no cancellation. It was not gazetted. Sergeant Rowel!: The cancellation of a barmaid's license is rare, aml it never yet has been ga.zetted. Mi Ruler: As long as she is gazetted as a barmaid she is entitled to act a.s a barmaid. Sergeant I’owell: She was informed by Mr Newton, then of the 1.. a hour Department, in 1915, that her certificate had been camell- d. as she had been away gver four years. Mr Indar: She wasn’t away foili years. She was working at the Thames Hotel as a barmaid in 19]If. Mr I’oynlon: The cancellation of her certificate must hi- brought properly under her notice. It must be proved before conviction that she is not gazetted as a licensed barmaid. R would he. wrong to convict her of being a barmaid mile-is she was properly informed that s'e was delicon’scd. .Mr Ruler: Her license could only he camelled under particular conditions:. She has never been out of the bar for two years at a stretch. S|ic was hack in New Zealand anil employed at the Thames Hotel in 1913. Mr .Moody (for Mr Page) : She has never before been prosecuted. Mr Ruhr: Yes: ue admit she was convicted for a breach of the anti-shout-ing law, which was never rigidly observed. Her license was suspended. How could it have been suspended, if it was not in existence? The magistrate: You can't deprive a | barmaid or anybody else ot her rights. It would he a very serious thing to do. .Mr luder: Is a mere word of mouth intimatinn to be regarded as a proper authoritative notice? Gan the girl be robbed of her livelihood in that man- | The ease was adjourned until Juiu Ritlu^^^