LICENSEE’S APPEAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 943, 9 April 1930, Page 10

LICENSEE’S APPEAL

RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYEE’S ACT LIQUOR SOLD IN MORNING The responsibility of an hotel licensee for the acts of an employee, partly engaged in the bar, in selling liquor during prohibited hours, was argued in an appeal heard by Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court today. The licensee of the Alexandra Hotel. Albert Edward Neville,’ appealed against a conviction and fine of £5 Is and costs, imposed by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., on March 7 last, for selling liquor before 9 o'clock in the morning of January 21. The appellant claimed that he did not sell the liquor, that his employee, Chenery, who had supplied the beer, had no authority to do so during prohibited hours, and further that he (Xeville) was not responsible for any acts or defaults of his employee. The facts, which were admitted, showed that at 7.55 a.m. on January 21, Sergeant Thompson, in passing the Alexandra Hotel, heard a cash register ring and went into the bar, the door of which was ajar. An employee, Charles Chenery, was behind the counter, and two other men were present, one being a lodger. An empty beer bottle and a freshly-drained glass stood on the counter. One of the visitors admitted he had consumed the beer and had paid for it, and Chenery admitted the sale, saying lie thought the man was going to book in. Also on the counter was an empty bottle of stout, and a glass, in which the froth was still fresh, but Chenery denied serving the lodger who was nearby. Mr. Meredith, who appeared to support the conviction, said that Chenery served in the bar in the licensee’s lunch-hour, and also between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., which were the busiest hours of the day. Evidence of Sergeant Thompson on these lines was called by Mr. Meredith. For the appellant, Mr. McVeagh argued that the issue was whether the magistrate had drawn a correct inference from the circumstances. Counsel stressed the importance from the licensee’s viewpoint to have the conviction quashed, because should he at any time apply for a certificate of fitness to conduct another house, this blemish might affect his chances. Evidence was given by Chenery to the effect that he was employed as a general hand and, under the award, was allowed to work 15 hours weekly in the bar. He stated lie had been warned not to sell liquor before hours. Mr. McVeagh contended that Chenery was not a barman in the proper sense of the word, and cited authorities to support liis contention that the appeal should be upheld. Mr. Meredith invited the court to infer that Chenery had served the lodger under the belief that he had authority to do so and likewise had supplied the other man, because he was under the impression the latter intended to book in at the hotel. He I contended that where an employee, J with express or implied authority* did I something apparently within the scope j of his authority, the licensee was liable, j even although the act was performed j during prohibited hours. • Decision was reserved.