"PUBLIC" OR "PRIVATE"

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8339, 28 January 1913, Page 9

"PUBLIC" OR "PRIVATE"

HOTEL BAR DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT TEST CASES IN THE CITY. AMUSING CR OSS-EXAMINATION. Four important test prosecutions under tho Licensing Act came before Dr A. McArthur, S.M., at tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when argument as to the definition of tho words “bar” and “private bar” was partially heard in coses in which John Thomas Levett (Adelphi Hotel), John Charles Mason (Panama), M. H. Robertson (Commercial), and Margaret Macintosh (Royal Tiger), were each charged with employing, .between January Ist and 10th, an unregistered barmaid “in or about a bar or private bar” in their hotels. Mr H, H. Ostler appeared for tho police, and Mr T. M. Wilford for th# defendants. Lovett’s case was taken first. At the outset, Mr Ostler stated that ho found that tho information was faulty, in that it alleged two offences. Ho applied that his Worship should amend it by deleting the words “bar or,” thus maldng the charge refer to “private bar” only. AN OBJECTION. Mr Wilford raised an objection. H« contended that there was no offence disclosed at all in the information, and that being so, it was not possible to amend and make an offence if there was none. Tho word “bar” was defined in tho Act as a room “opening immediately on to tho street”; there was no definition of a “private bar.” AVhen “bar” was defined how could a “private bar” exist? H there was a room to which only guests of an hotel might go and be served with liquor, possibly that might bo termed a “private bar.” He admitted that if there was an alternative offence charged, Mr Ostler had the right of election, and the information could be amended. But ho maintained that tlio terms “bar” and “private bar” were synonymous, consequently thero could be no alternative offence as alleged. There could be no such tiling as a “public private bar.” Mr Ostler replied that the informal tion disclosed two alternative offences. The defendants were charged with employing unregistered barmaids: (1) In a “.bar” ; and (2) in a “private bar.” Although tho point raised by Mr Wilford was ingenious, it was not sound in His Worship: I hold this: When tho information says “in or about a bar or private bar” there are two offences. Mr Wilford: Then you overrule my point? Dr McArthur; Yes.

Mr Ostler said the information was laid under section 80 of the Licensing Act, 1910, as amended by section 2 of the Barmaids’ Registration Act, 1912. Tho provision was: “After the first day of June, 1911, save as provided by this section, no female shall be employed in any capacity in or about the bar of any licensed premises at any time while th» bar is open for the sale of _ liquor.’ Counsel submitted that a private bar was a room or a lobby in a hotel, ni which liquor was sold, and which did not “open immediately to the street.’ In 1893 an Act was passed making it illegal to havo more than one bar in any licensed house. Afterwards, a keen lawyer discovered that definition of a “bar” under tho did not apply to a room not “opening immediately on to the street,” From that time to this, by paying £4O for a license, a man could open as many bars as he liked in one hotel so long as they did not open right on to the street. The result was that to-day some hotels were carrying on what was equal to several businesses, all within the one building. This was the history of bars which had come to bo termed “private bars.” “FODRPENNY DRINKS ONLY.”

Sergeant Kelly gave evidence that ,on January. 12th he visited the Adelplu Hotel. In a private bar an assistant named Alberta Plum was working. She said she was not registered nor eligible to be registered, but she had ,;een employed in the hotel for about nine months. Tho bar was circular, and ft was possible for the barmaid to go through from tho private to the pubhe bar. 'Dio latter did not “open immediately on to the street.** It was called a “public bar” because fourpenny drini-fl only were sold in it. Mr Wilford: It is not a public bar under the Licensing Act?—-No. So when you call it a public bar you use that term to describe it?—Yes. _ “Can you tell me in what respect it is private?” asked Mr Wilford respecting the bar in which Miss Plum was working. Sergeant Kelly: It is only known a* the “private bar." Tho only “public ’bar” in the hotel is marked ‘‘private.' Is that according to the definition of Sergeant Kelly, or the definition under the Act? —The definition under the bar in which the young lady (worked is not “private”?—lt is known js tho “private bar.'" The drinks are more expensive in that bar. (Laugh-

X see, yon mean you consider it is a private bar because it costs more to go in? (Laughter.) The part you call “private is “public,” and the part you call “public” is “private”? Yes. Tho hearing was adjourned until 2.15 p.m. to-day, when Mr Wilford will argue for the defence.