AN APPEAL CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 12 April 1930, Page 8

AN APPEAL CASE

RESPONSIBILITY OF A LICENSEE.

AUCKLAND, April 9. Arguing that he could not be held responsible for an early morning sale of liquor made without his authority by a general hand, Albert Edward Neville, licensee’ of the Alexandra Hotel, appealed in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Ostler against his conviction for selling liquor when''his licensee! premises were required to be closed. A conviction was recorded bv Mr Hunt, S.M., on March 7 last and a fine of £5 Is and costs was imposed on Neville, for an offence allegedly committed on January 21 last. N vilie gave- as' a ground for his appeal that lie did 1 hot sell the liquor and that it was supplied 'by Charles Chonerv, a general hand, without authority. He’ further contended that Clienery was not a - person for whose acts of defaults lie could l>e held responsible under the Licensing Act. Mr Meredith s '.who, appeared in support of the conviction, stated that before eight o’clock on the morning of January 21, Sergeant Thompson was passing the Alexandra Hotel in Federal Street, when Ihe heard a “cash register ring. The hotel door was ajar and he went to the bar and found a man who had come off an early morning train who was about to leave. On the bar was an empty bottle of beer, wl ioil Chenery admitted be had sold to the man. A lodger was also in the room, and' alongside him was a bottle of stout. When told of what had happened, the licensee did not deny the sale, but said that Chenery had no authority ; to.' serve the stranger. Chenery, however, served in the bar at iuticli times and between four.and six o’clock in the evening. His Honor: The case,is largely one of law,' as the facts are admitted.

Mf M’Veagli,"'’who appeared for the appellant said the whole question was whether the Magistrate drew a proper inference from the evidence tendered to linn. Evidence' would be given defining the status' of Chenery. “The importance of cases of’ this kind to any licensee is that should he seek to obtain a certificate of fitness with a view to going into some other house a conviction is a blemish against him,’’ Mr M’Veagh added. He contended that Chenery was not a barman in any s.ense of the term.

In evidence Chenery said his duties consisted of cleaning out the bar. polishing, dusting and doing general work about the hotel. He assisted in the bar during 'lunch hours and at rush periods i Wythe evenings. Mr Meredith said, it was clear that ChenCji'y served a. lodger and a stranger because he thought the hitter was going to book. The-,.inference to be dr'wn from these facts was that he had authority to serve lodgers, therefore, if a man had expressed or imnlierl authorin'-to serve lodgers the licensee was liable. l\f’Ve-e»h exolnined that t'bene’y w.e.s instructed not to sell liquor before the hotel was opened This fact was found in favour of the licensee, then the arpe'i! should be allowed. Judgment' was reserved.