A PRIVATE BAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8346, 5 February 1913, Page 10

A PRIVATE BAR

IMPORTANT DECISION CASE OF THE ADELPHI HOTEL. LICENSEE CONVICTED AND FINED £2. A judgment of interest to all hotel licensees in the Dominion was delivered by Dr A. McArthur, S.M., at tbs Magistrate’s Court yesterday, in the case in which John Thomas Levett, licensee of the Adelphi Hotel, was charged witn employing between January Ist and 10th inclusive, with the exception of Sunday, January sth, an unregistered barmaid “in or about a private bar” in bis hotel. Lovett’s was one of four cases, and was taken first. The facts were admitted at the hearing, -but .in isome -short evidence Sergeant Kelly said he visited the Adelphi Hotel on January 10th and went into the private bar. There he saw a young lady. Miss Alberta Plum, serving. Asked H she were registered, she stated that she was hot, neither was she eligible to be registered. She also said that she had been working there for nine months. Sergeant Kelly stated that the bar was a circular one, and the barmaid could , walk from one part to another, which was known as a public bar, where fourpenny drinks were sold. In cross-exam-ination the witness said the bar was not one defined by the Act. Miss Plum was in a private bar and could have gone to another private bar., Any of the public could enter this private bar at any time. It was not a public bar. The bar was not private, but tho drinks were more expensive. DEFINITION OF PRIVATE BAR. Under the Licensing Act, 1903, section 4. said Ills Worship, “public bar" or ■'bar" was defined as “any room, passage, or. lobby in any licensed premises open immediately to any street. Highway, public place, or public tboroug blare wherein the public might enter and purchase liquors." A private bar, then, in the ordinary sense meant a bar that was not public, that is. one which lacked one or other of the qualities necessary to a public bar by definition. It was shown in evidence that the public had access to the bar under notice, and could obtain liquors there. The necessary quality wanting was that it did not “open immediately" to any street. His Worship was of opinion that the bar was a "private bar" and that an offence had been committed. A great deal had been said by Hr T. M. Wilford, counsel for the defence, as to the necessity for the literal construction of penal statutes. He relied strongly on Beal’s Legal Interpretation where it said : “In construing an Act like the present (the Licensing Act. 1872). by which a penalty is imposed, we must look strictly at the language in order to see whether the person against whom the penalty is said to be enforced has committed 4m offence within the section." Twelve years later (1S08) the second edition of Beal stated: “A penal statute is to be interpreted, like any other instrument, according to the fair common-sense meaning of the language used." Again, Maxwell, in the Interpretation of Statutes, said: “The literal construction, then, has, in general, but prima facie preference. To arrive at tho real meaning it is always necessary to get an exact conception of tho aim, scope and object of tho whole Act; to consider, according to Lord Coke (1) AVhat was tho law before the Act was passed; (2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided; (3) what remedy Parliament had appointed; and (4) the reason, of the remedy." “Tho words of a statute." said Dr McArthur, “when there is a doubt about their meaning (I do not admit there is any doubt here) are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view." After quoting further from Maxwell his Worship said.- “As I have already stated, in my opinion an offence has been committed and the defendant must be convicted and fined £2 and court fees. I take it that the word ‘private* in the expression ‘private bar" must bo taken in its fair and reasonable meaning in connection with the aim, scope and object of the statute in which it is used. I would here point out that the penalty is a recurring on, but I have no desire on the cases at present before me to inflict such a penalty, as they are first and test cases." “FAR REACHING EFFECT.” "There are two important points in the case," said Mr Wilford after his Worship had concluded. “The first is tire question of whether the onus ie on the prosecution or defence in an information like the present to show that the barmaid is unregistered, and the second is the question whether the private bar, so called, is either a ‘bar’ within the meaning of tho Act. or a ‘private bar.’ The effect of the judgment is so far reaching that it may have the effect of imposing a liability on hotelkeepers of reconstructing licensed premises which have been constructed under the authority of the then existing law, and it may also affect the license issued to every hotelkeeper in New Zealand in so far as the relation of ‘bar’ to ‘license’ applies. Therefore. 1 have to give notice of appeal." Dr McArthur.- I quite understood that an appeal would be made, and rightly so, therefore I took considerable trouble witn the judgment. Costs of appeal were fixed at £7 7s, and the hearing of the other cases was adjourned sine die. Mr Wilford said that in one of the cases a new point had arisen. The barmaid had been issued a license by the Labour Department, so he was going to contend that the young lady was not an unregistered barmaid. Mr H. H. Ostler appeared for the Crown at the hearing.