LIQUOR IN A RESTAURANT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 April 1921, Page 5

LIQUOR IN A RESTAURANT.

USE OF A SOCIAL HALL. PROPRIETOR CONVICTED. Wellington, Tuesday. Reserved judgment was delivered at Wellington on Tuesday by Mr. Hunt, S.M., in the case in which D. E. Dustin was charged under sub-section 1 of section 11 of the Sale of Liquor Prevention Act with allowing liquor to be consumed’ in a restaurant at a time when licensed premises were required to be closed. The facts were that on February 16 the upstairs hall in the defendant’s premises in Cuba Street was let to the Chemists’ Association for a social meeting for the sum of 30s, and Dustin supplied the eatables, crockery, etc., at a certain rate. The promoters of the evening provided alcoholic refreshment. The room in question was not used by the defendant as a restaurant, but merely for social evenings. The defendant was prosecuted in August last on similar facts, and Mr. Evans, S.M., in dismissing the case, held that the room was not a part of the premises. Since the decision of Mr. Evans the section had been considered by Mr. Justice Cooper in the case, Brett 7. Till, an appeal from a magistrate’s decision. The magistrate had convicted a Hamilton restaurant keeper for allowing alcoholic liquor to be supplied after 0 p.m. in his restaurant. In that case the room had been let exclusively for

social purposes, but with this difference, that in the Hamilton case the room let was that ordinarily used as a restaurant. It was contended in the Hamilton case that as the restaurant had been closed to the general public from 3.30 p.m. in order to prepare for the social, from that time on the premises ceased to be a restaurant. Mr. Justice Cooper did not agree with this, holding that as the police had power to enter if necessary by force, under sub-section 3 of section 11., the restaurant remained a restaurant, whether it was closed to the general public or not. Mr. Hunt said that in the present case he could not hold that the upstairs hall at Dustin’s did not "in any manner appertain to a restaurant.” He thought it did, for it was used and kept as part of defendant’s business. The defendant was convicted, but as he had a magisterial decision in his favor last Mr. Hunt decided neither to fine him nor order him to pay the costs. Mr. Myers, for the defendant, intimated that he would appeal against the decision. Security was fixed at £7 7s. .