“PRIVATE BARS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8359, 20 February 1913, Page 3

“PRIVATE BARS.”

MORE TEST CASES. MAGISTRATE ENTERS A CONVICTION. The cases in which Mrs M. Macintosh, licensee of the Royal Tiger Hotel, and J. C. Mason, of the Panama Hotel, were charged with employing between January Ist and 10th unregistered barmaids “in or about a bar or private bar” of their hotels, came before Dr A. McArthur, SJH., for decision at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. Mr H. H. Ostler appeared for the police, and Mr T. M. Wilford, with, him Mr R. A. Singer, of Auckland, for the defendants. In the first case, Mr Wilford explained that the barmaid (Miss Florence Emma Cotton) had applied to the Labour Department for a registration certificate before the date of the summons. The young lady was entitled to it before the date of the information, but she did not get it until five days afterwards. That being the • position, counsel asked his Worship to dismiss the case. Dr McArthur: I want to know what the girl’s position is? Mr Wilford: She is now registered and can servo in any bar. Dr McArthur: I want to know what the effect is on the girL Mr Ostler: She can serve in a bar until she is as old as Methuselah, if she lives so long. (Laughter.) Mr Wilford said that Mrs Macintosh had not been previously' convicted for breaches of the licensing laws. Mr Ostler: I don’t ash for any conviction. His Worship dismissed the case. INFORMATION AMENDED. The case of the police v. Mason was then called. Mr Ostler said that in a case against the licensee of the Adelphi Hotel in which his Worship had entered a conviction Mr Wilford had given notice of appeal, but did not proceed with it. Mr Ostler understood that Mr Wilford did not do so for the reason that the bar in the Adelphi was not a typical example of a “private bar,” in so. much as the woman serving behind it could walk out into the “public bar.” Mr Ostler had stated that a “private bar” was a room in which liquors were served to the public, but which did not “open immediately” on to the street: Mr Wilford asked that the case of the Panama Hotel be taken as a typical example of an hotel containing a “private bar.” The evidence was all admitted and the whole question was whether an offence had < been committed. His Worship, said Mr Ostler, would no doubt decide the case in tne same way as he had decided the case of the licensee of the Adelphi Hotel. Counsel as£ed that the. words “bar or” be ptruck out of the information, and that the information be made to refer to January 10th only, instead of “between January Ist and, 10th.” Mr Wilford took the same points of objection as had been raised in the Adelphi Hotel case. He,' however, felt it necessary to say, on. behalf of Mr Singer and himself, that , they made the following thr6o points: (1) That the court had no power to amend the information as had been done; (2) that no offence was disclosed in the information as served on the defendant; and (3) that the room in which Miss Robina Capill (barmaid at the Panama) was employed was not a ■ private bar. Mr Singer, in reply to the magistrate, said he agreed with Mr Witford’s points, and did not think it would be necessary for him to elaborate them at that stage. His Worship: I most ,say what I said before. v Mr Wilford: I suppose that is all you can say; it would not be bad if you said the opposite. (Laughter.) Hia Worship held that a conviction must be entered. Mason would be fined £2, with costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £7 7s.