"LICENSED PREMISES."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 8 April 1907, Page 2

"LICENSED PREMISES."

Per Press Association. Auckland, April 0. An appeal, involving the question of what is included ill toe term "licensed premises," was heard by Mr. Justice Cooper in Banco this morning. Constable Beddeck, of the Thames, appealed from a decision of Mr. S. Bash, S.M., in the ease of tile Police v. Victor Bo.vdlcr, who was charged with having been ' found en the licensed premises of the Cornwall Anns Hotel when sueh premise » were required, by law to bo closed. The Hon. J. A. Tole, for llio appellant, said till: respondent admitted having been in the yard of the hotel, but denied that he was there for the purpose of com.uitting a breach of the Licensing Act. 'I lie magistrate dismissed the cas" upon the ground that the yard was not included in the definition of "licensed premises" under the licensing law, and that tin house was all that was spoer lied : n .«. license. Mr. Tole argued that the magistrate was obviously wron<r, for, al'.nongh the Act of I!MH dealt wihii licensed premises, but gave no dcfinitio.i, he overlooked the fact that with the licenshgAct of liKli was incorporated viM< the Lie i sing Arc e'' 1881, which gave a clear definition as to what "licensed premises ' want, slewing thai a vai.l was included.

llis lienor said lie need not go further than tin statutes to allow the appeal, lit agreed with Mr. 'kw that the Act of ISSI and its deliirtion id' "lieeir-ed premises ' applied. This dctiniliou included "every room, building, closet, cellar, Miittb ground, stable, outhouses, or any other place whatsoever appertaining to such house or place." When a license was issued by the licencing committee it included necessarily all the matters which were referred to in the definition of Section 4of the Act of 1881. It would be. absurd to say that if an innIccep?.- permitted drunkenness in his yard cr stable lie would not be liable under the Licensing Act. He referred

tile matter hack to tlu l magistrate with a direction thai the ground of dismissal was wri njr in jaw, lmt if Die mngistrntp was uitisiicd tlint the respondent; was upon the premises wit!' a reasonable excuse, then tie ought to dismiss the pro-f-ecuti''i. Seeing that tile respondent, had not opposed the aji|K'al, lie would not iill'iw costs.