“PRIVATE BARS”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8340, 29 January 1913, Page 9

“PRIVATE BARS”

WHAT ARE THEY?

IMPORTANT TEST CASE'CON-

CLUDED

MAGISTRATE RESERVES JUDG-

MENT,

The case in which John Thomas Levett, licensee of tho Adelpfii Hotel, was charged with employing, between January Ist and lUtii, an unregistered barmaid “in or about a private bar” in his hotel was resumed before Dr. A. McArthur, S.M., at tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. Mr H. H. Ostler appeared lor the police, and Mr T. M. Vvutord for tne defendant.

Mr Wilford contended that theie was no evidence placed beiore the com. t as to the meaning of the words pnvate bar” except the evidence of Sergeant Kelly. “Bar” was denned in tne principal Act as any room, passage, or lobby, wherein the public might enter and purchase liquor, and which was “open immediately” to the street. It had been held over and over again that that definition did not apply to any room not “opening immediately" to the street —that was to say, unless it opened directly on to tho street it was not a bar. The restrictions in regard to females working in hotels applied only to certain defined parts of tlio premises the bar and private bar. What was tho meaning of “private bar” 1 “Bar” was defined, and a bar was tho same thing as a private bar. W here they had tho two words “private bar,” and one of them was defined in tbo Act, it was impossible to exclude the meaning ox private bar” as apart from tfio meaning of “bar” and “public bar” in the statute. The reason was that the defined part “bar” was part of tbe expression. What part of the definitions in the Act must bo altered to make a place a private bar? There were two possible views. Firstly, a private bar was a bar which was not public. it must be a place where tfio public could not purchase liquor, if a bar was a “private bar” it could not be a “public bar,” and if it was not a “public bar” it must bo a “private bar.” Another view was that a private bar was a bar as defined in the statute, with the elimination of tho last words “wherein the public may enter and purchase liquor.” A private bar could only mean one thing —a bar that wa, private, where, say, the guests of an hotel, but not the public, could purchase liquor. Mr Ostlers argument amounted to this: That every bar in a hotel which did not “open immediately” on to the street was a private bar. But this contention could not be sound, because in all hotels the public could enter private bars, therefore those bars must be public. There could only be one meaning to the word “private,” and that was “not public.” Before a hotelkeeper could be found guilty of keeping a “private bar” it must be proved that that bar was private, and unless it was proved to be private how could it be called a private bar ? Mr Ostler, in reply, said that the Legislature in 1910 intended to prohibit the employment of girls in bars, but as it was thought a' hardship to prevent women who at that time were working in bars from further pursuing Heir calling, provision was made that they might continue to assist provided obey registered. Afterwards, it was found that owing to a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word “bar” in tho Licensing Act, licensees wore able to employ barmaids in what had come to be known as “private bars.” Tho consequence was that the Barmaids’ Registration Act, 1912, was passed. It was clear beyond doubt what the Legislature meant, and it was the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Dr. McArthur intimated that he Would deliver his decision on Tuesday next.

In the meantime, three other cases of a similar nature to that against Levett stand adjournc*!.