Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AFTER SIX O’CLOCK

THE HOTEL LAW.

MARTON, Dec 7.

A case of very great interest to hotel-keepers and the travelling public was dealt with in the Marton Court to-day, when Chas. Stuart, licensee of the Marton Hotel, was charged with having exposed liquor for sale after the closing hour. Mr Cohen, counsel for the defence, stated that the landlord had taken a party of lodgers, Mr B. McCaul and his children, in his motor car to a shearing match on Sunday morning, and on returning the landlord invited, them to have a drink before they went home; they ail went into the hotel. There was no suggestion of any other drinking going on at the time, and there was no attempt at concealment of the party’s doing. They all partook of drink at the publican’s invitation. Counsel believed that there was great misconception on the part of licensees, the public and the police as to what was the actual, meaning of the Licensing Act. A public-house was a public-house for the convent, ence of the public, subject only, of course, to restrictions as to the sale of liquor, and any person had a right to be in a public-house at any hour of the day or night, provided the publican permitted him to be there. Any person had a right at any time of the day or night to be in a public-house, and to remain there and consume liquors there, either in the bar or elsewhere, provided he was .a bona fide guest or lodger A doctor attending a patient in an hotel had no more right to be there than any other person had. The doctor had only the the same right as any other person, that was the right to be there on lawful business. The public should know what their rights were in this respect, and they would thus avoid terrorism by any official. There were not ten policemen in a hundred in New Zealand who, if they were asked whether persons had a' right to be in a hotel after hours but would reply in the negative.

The magistrate concurred with the views expressed by Mr Cohen, and dismissed the case.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TAIDT19171208.2.14

Bibliographic details

Taihape Daily Times, 8 December 1917, Page 4

Word Count
366

AFTER SIX O’CLOCK Taihape Daily Times, 8 December 1917, Page 4

AFTER SIX O’CLOCK Taihape Daily Times, 8 December 1917, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert