CLOSING OF HOTELS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 December 1918, Page 2

CLOSING OF HOTELS.

ALLEGED BREACHES OF REGULATIONS. NEW riA'MOUTH PUBLICANS CHARGED. TECUMICAL OBJECTIONS RAISED. ; At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, j before Mr A. Crooke, S.M., William j Emeiiv. licensee of the Royal Hotel, and .Muriii McKeini, widow of tiie late Jolui I McKeaii, licensee of the Criterion IloU'l. were charged on the information of the police with, on November 27, having their bars open contrary to the order of tlia Health Officer. Sub-Inspector Hutton appeared (or the police mid Mr A. H. Johnstone represented defendants. The case against Emeny was called first ami a pica of not guilty was entered. Sergeant Trehey, deposed that at 1.55 p.m. on November 27 he visited the Royal Hotel in company with Conroblenski. They entered by the private door, and went along the passage and saw two men standing at the slide opening. into the bar. The licensee was inside tho bar and the interior of the bar \va3 exposed to view. There were glasses' and liquor on the shelf at the slide. Witness asked one' man what he was doing there, and bef,-.re lie could reply, Euicnv stated that both men had had lunch with him that day and he had invited them to tiie our to have a drink Roth men stated they had not paid io l ' tho liquor and (hat they- had not slept, at the hotel the previous night. One's glass contained brandy and the other's had whisky. All the other doors Into Ihe bar were locked. Witness produced the Order-in-Conhcil giving the Health Inspector authority to close the hotels, and also the newspaper advertisement notifying the closing. Mr -lo'iustone did not cross-examine. Const able Wroblenski gave corroborative evidence.

In reply to Mr Johnstone witness ■•aid llfit hub of the men lived at Okato but. was frequently in Xew Plymouth; Tl-erc would be nothing strange about him having lunch at the hotel. ' j.he Other n:»n lived in New Plymouth. The men were standing in the passage and tin- licensee was the only person in the liar. Constable Blaikie gave. evidence as to serving tin Health Department's no:ioe nu defendant. Kuk-Inspector Hutton deposed that the notice served was tlie same that lie received through the ordinary official sources, Mr Johnstone said he did not know what the ordinary official way of reeelviiif; sucli orders was. but thought some Jurthcr proof of authority to ■cake such an order would be necessary. Hie facts us set out by the police were undisputed During the period of the closure Ins client had gone as far as to decline to serve meals and the two. men who eame in on the day in question aimplv took "pot luck!" After the lunch he served them with drinks, in the passage. He claimed that the bar was closed, inasmuch as it was not" open for the sale of liquor according to the Licensing Act. The whole object- of closing was to prevent people (joiifrrcgating and thereby spreading influenza. The charge was laid npder Section 18 of the Public Health Act, which gave certain powers to health olilccra for the purpose of eflectually checking and preventing the spread of infections diseases. Mr Johnstone pointed out that though'the order was signed by Robert Haldane Makill, no proof had been given that he was a duly appointed Health Inspector or that he was the olT'cer for this particular district. Moreover the terms of the warrant expressly) required the consent of the Minister of Public Health, and there was not a word of that in the order nor was any proof of his approval before the court. Sub-Inspector Hutton: All Government official appointments were assumed to be proved until the contrary was shown. The Magistrate suggested that he was entitled to assume that the Minister's approval had been given, but Mr Johnstone said the Bench could not do so.

Continuing, Mr Johnstone said his client flirt not wish to take advantage of a technicality to secure a dismissal. The Magistrate said it would not help defendant's case much it the information was dismissed, because a fresh information could be brought and the additional evidence submitted. He tlioi'jjM the dosing of the bars was to prevent people drinking as well as to Stop (lie congregating of people. Mr Crooko said he thought he would have to dismiss tho information on the technicalities raised. Mr .Winstone said he was prepared to accept an adjournment in order to give the police opportunity to produce the necessary evidence of Dr. Makgill's appointment as Health Officer, and also of the Minister's approval of the order closing the hotels, though he thought there was room for reasonable doubt as to ■ whether that approval had been given. and his [client was entitled to Hie benefit of such doubt. Ultimately it was agreed to adjourn the case until the 12th inst. to allow of proof being furnished as suggested bv Mr Johnstone.

■ In the ease against the licensee of Hie Criterion Hotel Mr Johnstone intimated that the same contentions would he raised as in the other case, with the additional (ilea that tho place in which the licensee was alleged to have been seen was not a bar according to the terms of the Licensing Act, inasmuch as it did not opeii immediately i>n to a, public street;. Kvideiue was iiiven bv Constable l!hiil;ic 'is to having served the notice of closing on the licensee. He also stated that in consequence of what 'lie had been told lie visited the hotel oil N'ovcmber 27 and found the door of the bar wide open and Mrs McKean behind the bar. She stated she gave no liquor excepting to men who were there in connection with the matter of the license and tc those who were stocktaking. She was the owy . person in the bar at that time. Two boarders came along and were about to enter, but on seeing witness they went on to the commercial room. Later another man named Simmons came purl |y into the bar from the back of the hotel. To Mr Johnstone: The place where he saw Mrs McKean was what \vafc commonly known as the private bar. It opened oil' the main passage-way. Witness drew a plan of the premises, which was submitted to the bench, showing the place in which the offence was y'eged to have- been committed. Sir Johnstone contended that as the loom was not a bar according to the meaning of the Act there could therefore be no offence, The case wa# adjourned till next Thursday.