RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEE.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 August 1924, Page 4

RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEE.

FOR ACTS OF HARMAN.

SALE OF LIQUOR AFTER IJOFRS CHRISTCHURCH, Any. 2.

That a licensee cannot escape responsibility for tlie sale of liquor after hours by a barman proving that the yeneral authority was limited by private instructions, was the point emphasised in a .itidyment yiven by his Honor Mr Just ice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday. The. case was an appeal on law from a decision by -Mr JO. 1). Mosley,. S.M., dismissing all informations charyiny A. .J. Lawrence with (1) keeping hilicensed premises open ; (2) exposing liquor for salo in such premises; pA) selling liquor on a Sunday. On .Sunday, May 11, Sergeant Paterson and - Constable Kiuy visited Storey’s Hotel, of which Lawrence is licensee, and on entering the bar found Carpenter, tlie barman, pulling a long beer, and a man named Grafton consuming beer from a glass. There were live man in front of the bar and Carpenter and another barman and two plumbers were behind tha bar. Thu plumbers were engaged in repairing the beer pumps and the barman, Carpenter. was takiny stock. Grafton bad been supplied with the beer by one of the barmen, and bad paid for it. ’I he licensee was not in the bar mid did not know that anyone except the plumbers and barmen were there, lie bad yiven the barmen instructions not to serve anyone except bona fide boarders during prohibited hours. Upon these facts the .Mayistrate dismissed the informal iuu on the yroiiud tlial under the eirciiiiisiaiici-s the licensee wits not responsible for the unauthorised acts of his barmen. "As to tin- information for selling liquor during the lime the pivnii-ex are directed to be closed lla- Magistrate appears to have acted upon a mistaken view of the law," said his Honor. "Footion Hit) is one of a millsbor of sections in the Licensing Act which imposes an absolute responsibility upon the licensee. If the offence is eonimilt..-d by a servant of the license., and is within the geiteittl scope ol his employment the licensee it responsible end caniint oseape by proving tlial the y-neral authority was limited by private instructions, however definite and express tliose instructions may have been. The question whether the act of the servant, is within the scone of Ids employment is determined by the nature ol that employment." The only qtiwstinii in the case, the jud tnv.'iit continued, was whether li e licensee could escape from vicarious responsibility for acts done by bis barman which were within the yeneral scope of hi.- employment. Counsel had suggested that il the case was remitted to the .Magistrate seme reference should be made in the discretion given to jic-tiies by section 32 of tin 1 .III." lit es ol the I’eace Act. In a judgment on this question Mr .Instils" Chapman had said that Magistrates ought to exercise this discretion with great care, as it was really only capable of being used in the case of uliilts in very exieptional circum'taiices. Ilis Honor quoted another udymciit indicating the gravity of the illcticc. Il stated: "Licenses to keep lie liou-cs are only granted to purs.ill' ,f good character, and it i- obvious hat the object id restricting lb -grant>f licenses would lie debated ii tlm' ionised person could, by delegating l he control and uiaiiag. liiv'd ol the! iiit'.se to another person, who was al-

together unlit In keen it. Iree bimsell Iron tie.- i espoti-ibility for the maimer; in which tlie house v.as i-oiiducled." i Tin- appeal was allow -il and tlk* easel was remitted to tlie Mayist rate to convict. ol selling liquor during prohibited j hours unless he was ol opinion open : the feels dis-10-'d in the case that it. is i-iopor inso Ini tin- i-v-ivi'i- ol th--! dist ri ; i'-'i given Fret ton - <'' M"', An. j At the hearing of the api>eal Mr A.: T. Donii-'liy appeared tor tlie app-I- ; hint. Arthur C. Woodley, a police eon-j stable, and Mr M. -I. Gressoii lor re-j spolhlcilt . I