THE LICENSING LAWS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3762, 11 April 1907, Page 3

THE LICENSING LAWS.

An Appeal Sustained. Interesting to Publicans. Auckland, April 6. An appeal involving the question of what is included in the term “ licensed premises ” was heard by Mr Justice Cooper in banco this morning. Constable Beddek, of the Thames, appealed from a decision of Mr S. Bush, S.M., in the case of the police v. Victor Bowlder, who was charged with having been found on the licensed premises of the Cornwall Arms Hotel when such premises were required by law to be closed. The Hon. J. A. Tole, for the appellant, said the respondent admitted having been in the yard of the hotel, but denied that he was there for the purpose of committing a breach of the Licensing Act. The Magistrate dismissed the case, upon the ground that the yard was not included in the definition of “licensed premises” under the licensing laws, and that the house was all that was specified in a license, Mr Tole argued that the Magistrate was obviously wrong, for, although the Act of 1904 dealt with licensed premises but gave no definition, he overlooked the fact that the Licensing Act 1881 gave a clear definition as to what ‘ ‘ licensed premises ’ ’ meant, showing that a yard was included-

His Honour said he need not go farther than the New Zealand statutes to allow the appeal. He agreed with Mr Tole that the Act of 1881 and its definition of “licensed premises” applied. This definition included ‘ ‘ every room, building, closet, cellar, skittle ground, stable, outhouses, or any other place whatsoever appertaining to such house or place.” When a license was issued by the licensing committee it included necessarily all the matters which were referred to in the definition of section 4 of the Act ot xBBi. It would be absurd to say that, if an innkeeper permitted drunkenness in his yard or stable, he would not be liable under the Licensing Act. He referred the matter back to the magistrate, with a direction that the ground of dismissal was wrong in law, but if the magistrate was satisfied that the respondent was upon the premises with a reasonable excuse he ought to dismiss the case. Seeing that the respondent had not opposed the appeal, he would not allow costs.