Quinn v Burke

JurisdictionIreland
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date28 June 1905
Date28 June 1905

K. B. Div

Before PALLES, C.B., and MADDEN and KENNY, JJ.

QUINN
and

BURKE

Justices of DublinIR [1903] 2 I. R. 429, at p. 439.

Quin v. Murray 8 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 392.

Stephens v. EmpsonELR 1 Ex. D. 100.

The King v. GreerIR [1904] 2 I. R. 494.

Licensing Law — 2 — Hotel — Right of sale to the public — "Public bar."

94 THIS 11t1611. Kb:PORTS. [1906. E. B. hit . QUINN v. BURKE (1). 1905. June 27, 28. Licensing law—Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 18), sect. 2, sub-sect. 2—Hotel—Right of sale to the public—" Public bar." The authority to sell intoxicating liquors conferred by a license, under sect. 2, sub-sect. 2, of the Licensing Act, 1902, is not the same as that which belonged, before the Act, to an hotel license issued under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880. Unless the house has, and continues to have, no " public bar," and answers, and continues to answer, the other descriptions of an hotel contained in the section, the license is no protection to the holder during its currency. With respect to such a license, where the house answers the deseiption specified, there is no prohibition against sales to the general public—that is to say, to persons who are neither travellers nor lodgers in the house. The meaning of the expression "public bar" considered. Ti us was a case stated by Mr. Mahony, Divisional Magistrate for the city of Dublin, for the opinion of the Court upon certain questions arising on the Licensing Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 18), s. 2, sub-s. 2. The case set forth that the defendant was charged in three summonses with having on the 19th February, 1st April, and 9th April, 1905, at 38 and 39 Parkgate-street, sold by retail, at a public bar in the premises, in contravention of terms of her license, intoxicating liquor, without being duly licensed to sell the same by retail. At the -^ring of each of these complaints it was proved on the part of the complainant that the defendant was the holder of a license granted for an hotel, pursuant to the 2 Edw. 7, c. 18, s. 2, sub-s. 2, and that the defendant's trade was principally carried on in three rooms (marked "A," "B," and " C," on the accompanying plan), one of these rooms fronting Parkgate-street, and another being at the rear of the premises. Between these two rooms there was a third room (marked " C " on the map), part of which was cut off by a partition and glass-screen (1) Before PALLES, C.B., and MADDEN and KENNY, JJ. Plan of Phoenix Park Hotel COFFEE ROOM x PARK GATE STREET Va. II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. behind which intoxicating liquors were stored, and from which such liquors were handed out to an attendant to be given to the customer. This glass-screen was provided with a movable panel and. door which could be opened when drink was to be handed out. The three rooms contained chairs, tables, and lounges. Upstairs there were a sufficient number of bedrooms to comply with the provisions of the Act. No customer had been served directly at the enclosure in room " C," all drinks being given to an attendant who handed them to the customers. On each of the occasions referred to in the summonses several persons residing in the city of Dublin, some of them in the immediate neighbourhood of the defendant's shop, were found drinking intoxicating liquors in these rooms. These persons were not travellers or lodgers in the defendant's hotel ; and the intoxicating liquors had been sold to them by the defendant. No witness was called for the defence, but defendant's counsel put in, and relied upon, the license issued to the defendant by the Inland Revenue Authorities, and also a certificate that she had paid the sum of 10s. as required by the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 68, s. 12. The defendant admitted that all persons coming in and asking for drink were supplied. Counsel for the complainant contended that the defendant had on her premises a public bar within the meaning of 2 Edw. 7, c. 18, s. 2, sub-s. 2, and that the license issued under the authority of that section did not authorise the sale of drink to persons not being travellers or lodgers in the hotel. For the defendant, it was contended that the summonses disclosed no offence, that there was no evidence to support the offence as charged in the summonses, And that the words " public bar " referred to a physical structure analogous to a publichouse counter, at which persons stand and take drink, and that no such structure existed on the defendant's premises. It was further contended on behalf of the defendant that the license issued to her was not a new kind of license, and was in fact the license known as a publican's license, and carried the same rights at least as an hotel license issued,under the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, sect. 43. The magistrate was of opinion that the license was in fact a new kind of license, and he held that it was not legal for 12 96 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1906. K. B. Dir. the defendant to sell intoxicating liquor to persons not being 1905. travellers or lodgers in the hotel. He was further of opinion QUINN that the words " public bar "in the section did not refer exclusively v. BURK F. to a physical structure of the kind referred to by defendant's counsel, and lie held that on the defendant's premises, as constructed and used, a public bar did exist. He also held that the summons did disclose an, offence, and that there was evidence to support it. T. H. Healy, K.C., and fumes O'Connor, for the defendant. D. S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kelly v Crowley
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 Marzo 1985
    ...Cases mentioned in this report:— O'Donovan v. Cork County CouncilIRDLTR [1967] I.R. 173; (1965) 102 I.L.T.R. 159. Quinn v. BurkeDLTRIR [1906] 2 I.R. 94; (1905) 39 I.L.T.R. 253. R. (Bourke) v. Justices of DublinIR [1903] 2 I.R. 429,440; 3 N.I. J.TR. 130. Taylor v. Ryan and Jones (Unreported,......
  • Ampleforth Ltd t/a The Fitzwilliam Hotel v Cherating Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 Abril 2003
    ...2000 S160 LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1982 S2 CARRIGHALL HOLDINGS LTD V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1983 ILRM 268 QUINN V BOURKE 1906 2 IR 94 INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1988 S16 INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1988 S2 XJS INVESTMENTS LTD V DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION 1987 ILRM 659 Synopsis: INJUN......
  • An application by Nicholas Brown, nominated by McCloskey and O'Kane Building Company
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 Junio 2010
    ...is not entitled to sell to any person whatever and "the licence would cease to be a protection to the holder" (Quinn v. Burke (1906) 2 I.R. 94; 39 I.L.T.R. 253). Accordingly an hotel licence exists so long only as such premises function as an hotel and the granting of an order for......
  • Re Doyle
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 Enero 1946
    ...Accordingly I shall reverse the decision of the learned Circuit Court Judge and grant the application. (1) [1903] 2 I. R., 429. (2) [1906] 2 I. R. 94. (1) [1903] 2 I. R. (1) 3 C. L. R. 100. (2) 31 L. J. M. C. 93. In re Doyle's Application New licence - Hotel premises Licensing (Ir.) Act, 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT