Important to Hotelkeepers.

Manawatu Herald, 6 February 1897, Page 2

Important to Hotelkeepers.

— ♦ ■ — In the case of the police v. Charles Batt, licensee of the Masonio Hotel at Wanganui, in which be was convicted of allowing liquors to be consumed during prohibited hours, Judge Kettle in giving his decision aaid the object of the Legislature was to stop the consumption of liquor on licensed premises during prohibited hours. It was admitted in this case that liquor had been consumed. Was such consumption lawful ? The point raised by counsel for the defendant was important, and his Worship would be glad to see it taken to a higher court, but he could not agree with the contention. It seemed to him clear that the Legislature intended that any consumption on licensed premises witb the licensee's permission during prohibited hours, even though the liquor is not purchased, is an offence unless the licensee can show that there were other circumstances suoh „ as " treating of bona fida guests by lodgers," &c, which would justify the licensee in allowing it. The only remaining question was, Has the defendant established that the admitted consumption was justified ? His Worship was satisfied he had not, and that the suggestion that the customer was v treated as a friend " could not be entertained. The defendant knew that his customer was a prohibited person against whom a prohibition order had been made, and that it only expired on 10th December. It was not tbe act of a friend to allow him to . drink to excels, as the evidence showed he had done on the Saturday night, 27th December, and to supply him with more drink on the Sunday morning. His Worship was satisfied that the defendant's customer went to tbe hotel as a customer to get drink, and not as an ordinary private friend, and that the defendant, knowing that, supplied him because he was a customer and did not wish to let him go away disappointed. The defendant was not honestly bona fide treating the customer as his friend in the true sense of the term. Under these circumstances the consiimption of the liquor was illegal. It is admitted that the consumption was allowed by tbe defendant. Defendant convicted and- fined £10 and costs 15s, the conviction to be endorsed on the license as. required by the Act.