038-NLR-NLR-V-05-PERERA-v.-GUNASEKERA-et-al.pdf
{ i-24 y
11MU.
May 6.
PERERA v. GUNASEKKRA e* at.
P. C., Balapitii/ti, 31,313.
Licensing Ordinance, No. 12 of 1891, s. 47 (1) and a. 13 (1)—License to keepa hotel—Sale of liquor to be consumed off the premises.
A license to keep a hotel, as provided in section I'l (11 ot theOrdinance' No. 12 of 1891. does not include the privilege of sellingintoxicating liquor “ not to be consumed on the premises."
T
HE accused in this case was the bar-keeper of a hotel atAmbalangoda, the proprietor of which had a license to
keep a hotel only. The accused was proved to have sold abottle of whisky to one Davith de Silva, who was not a guest atthe hotel, to be consumed off the premises.
The Police Magistrate found him guilty under sections (47) (11and 13 (1) of the Licensing Ordinance, No. 12 of 1801.
On appeal for the conviction, Seneviratne (with him ’VanLangenberij) appeared for the appellant.—The license to theproprietor was to keep a hotel. Section 12(2) entitles the
licensee to sell intoxicating liquor by retail on the premises, andthere is no provision in the Ordinance enacting that the intoxi-cating liquor should not be sold at the hotel for consumptionoff the premises. It is open to the Government Agent toimport such a restriction into the license, but he has not done so.Such a hotel license on which a duty of Rs. 250 is payableinvolves the minor license to sell' liquor for consumption outsidethe hotel on which a duty of only Rs. 75 is payable. 'The licenseto one who is not a hotel-keeper to sell by retail intoxicatingliquor to be consumed on the premises is Rs. 150. The twominor licenses cost Rs. 225, but the hotel license costs Rs. 250and draws with it the privileges of the two lesser licenses.
Ramanathan, S.-G., for respondent, contra.
6th May, 1901. Monckeiff, J.—
The accused in this case was charged under section 47 (1) and.section 13 (1) of the Licensing Ordinance. No. 12 of 1891, forselling at Ambalangoda, in his capacity as a bar-keeper of ahotel, a bottle of Cheviot brand whisky to be consumed off thepremises to one Davith de Silva, such sale being contrary tothe terms of the license. There has been a conflict of evidence
( 125 )
as to whether this bottle of whisky was so 6oldto Davith de1901.
Silva. The Magistrate has believed the evidence of the witnesses May8.for the prosecution, whose testimony has clearly proved the MoscRswr.charge if believed; and he has not believed thewitnesses for,T-
defence. I am therefore unable to question, onthe materials
before me, the justice of his decision upon the facts.
It was, however, urged on behalf of the accused that the licenseunder which the hotel was earned on included the privilege ofselling intoxicating liquors to be cousutned off the premises. Theterms of the license are as follows:— T. George Merrick Fowler,
“ Government Agent of the Southern Province, do hereby license“ B. Gunasekera of Ambalangoda to keep a hotel at Ambalan-" goda at the upstair house by the C-olombo-Galle high road.
“ standing almost opposite the Ambalangoda resthouse and“ belonging to the licensee.” It was contended that this license. .in the true interpretation of section 12 of Ordinance No. 12of 1891. sub-section (2), entitled the licensee to sell intoxicatingliquors off the premises.
The sub section provides that the license to keep a hotel shallentitle the licensee to sell intoxicating liquor by retail to beconsumed on the premises to which such license extends, and itis contended that, taking that provision along with the list ofstamp duties enumerated in' sub-section (1), the holder of ahotel license may sell liquor to be consumed off the premises,because from an examination of the stamp duties it appears thatthe privilege of selling liquor upon the premises is much greaterthan that of selling it to be consumed off the premises. I* amnot sure that the premises upon which that argument is foundedis sound. In any case I do not take that view of that section.
The interpretation of the word “ hotel ” in section • 4 is a placewhere intoxicating liquor is furnished for payment to travellersand others who are accommodated in the hotel, and one of theprimary objects of a hotel is to provide intoxicating liquorfor those persons who are accommodated in the hotel. The saleof intoxicating liquor to be sold off the premises is, in my opinion,a secondary object which a hotel-keeper may have in view; andin one sense, I may say, it is an object outside the range of theprimary objects of a hotel. I am of opinion that the privilegeof selling the liquors to be consumed off the premises is a greaterconcessiou to the licensee of a hotel than that of selliugintoxicating liquor to be consumed upon the premises, the latterbeing a privilege already granted in ttie definition of “ hotel ” insection 4. For these reasons I think the judgment should beaffirmed.