BOARDER’S BEER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 771, 18 September 1929, Page 11

BOARDER’S BEER

CONSUMPTION OFF PREMISES LIMITED SUPPLY ALLOWED fSpecial to THE SUN) THAMES, Tuesday. Just how far an hotel licensee can go in supplying liquor to boarders for consumption off the premises was indicated by Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., in a judgment given today. On Sunday, July 7, the Thames police arrested two men who were found drunk in a motor-car beside a live-gallon keg of beer, together with a quantity of bottled beer and whisky. As a result, R. A. Allwood, licensee of the Short land Hotel, was charged with Sunday trading. Sergeant Powell contended that the acceptance of liquor after luncheon on the Sunday and after the men had paid •heir board bill, constituted an illegal sale. Had the liquor been purchased prior to settling for the board, the sale would have been perfectly in order. Tho magistrate ruled that the liquor was not appropriated to a contract for its sale on the Saturday. The sale was made and the liquor was paid for and supplied on Sunday morning, when the two men were leaving, and when, having slept at the hotel on Saturday night, they also paid for their board, and so terminated the relationship of inkeeper and guest between themselves and the defendant. It was also evident that the keg of beer was intended for flaxmill hands at Torehape. “As for tho contention that as section 101 of the Licensing Act authorises a licensee to supply liquor to a boarder at any time, any sale to the two men during closing hours by the defendant would not be an offence, the answer is that a licensee has a right under this section to supply reasonable, but not unlimited, quantities of liquor to a boarder. Here the amount supplied was quite unreasonable. “These men were so liberally supplied with drink on the Sunday morning that they were intoxicated when they left the hotel, and they took away in their car a load of liquor, part of which was for other men in another district. There is no authority in the Licensing Act for that.” In endorsing Mr. Allwood’s licence the magistrate imposed a fine of £7 10s and costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £25, on the application of Mr. C. J. Garland.