The Courts.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 392, 12 November 1903, Page 5

The Courts.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALEXANDRA

Tuesday, November 10th.

I'ef re F. J. Burgess, Esq, S.M.)

Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act.

Francis Gorman, licensee of the Caledonian Hotel, Alexandra, was charged by the Police with that he did on Sunday, Sept 27th, unlawfully expose liquor for sale on his licensed premises.

Sergt Rogers conducted the prosecution, and Mr A 0 Hanlon, of Dunedin (with him Mr 0 0 Hutton), appeared for defendant, who pleaded " Not guilty." Sergt Rogers opened the case, and called

Constable Dale, who said that about 1135 am, on Sunday, September 27th, he visited defendant's temporary bar, and found the door locked. Oould hear persons moving about inside. He knocked at the door, and on being admitted he saw four men in front of the counter, each with an empty glass in front of him. There were on the counter two bottles, one containing whisky and the other lemonade. The barman (Gay) said that the glasses had been left there overnight; and two of the men denied having been supplied with liquor. No explanation was given him at the time for the men being in the bar. W Cummack, sworn, said that on Sunday morning, 27th Sept, he met J Sawyers, and they proceeded up the street towards the hotel. Here they mettwoothers,and witness invited them to have a drink. Gay, the barman, was sitting outside the bar reading, and at witness's request admitted them to the bar. Witness "shouted" the four drinks and paid for them. They were only in the bar a minute or two when the constable came in. He was a lodger at the hotel, and had been since the previous Tuesday. Considered he was entitled to be supplied with the brinks, All the men were friends of his. Cross-examined: He was still a lodger at the hotel, and had been ever since Sept 27th, except when he was away at the dredge. W Larkins and J Sawyers corroborated the evidence of the previous witness,

F Gay, barman, stated that his service with defendant had expired on the previous Friday, but the latter had asked him to stay on over Saturday. Defendant had given him the key of the bar on Sunday morning to get a drink for himself. He was sitting outside reading, when Oummack asked him to supply drinks to himself and three others. Witness's evidence was corroborative of that of the previous witnesses regarding the supplying of the drinks. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon: When defendant gave witness the key, he gave instructions not to serve anyone with drinks. Oummack was a boarder at the hotel, and on the three nights previous to Sept. 27th had occupied his (witness's) room. Cummack paid for the drinks.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr Hanlon submitted that it was perfectly clear that, on the evidence, a conviction could not follow. Learned counsel pointed out that the provisions in the Act of 1881 with regard to the right of travellers and lodgers to treat their friends during hours when the hotel is directed to be closed, was amended in the Liquors Sale Oontxol Act of 1895; but only in so far &$ travellers were concerned. This phasised the meaning intended by the Legislature that a lodger had a perfect right to treat his friends. The case wassimilar to that of White v. Esther, the facts of which counsel detailed. It had been conclusively proved that Gummack was a lodger; therefore be was legally entitled to be supplied with liquor for himself and his friends. With regard to the charge for " unlawfully exposing," it was clear that if persoDS were legally being served with liquor, there could be no charge for unlawful exposure for sale. His Worship said, that, on the evidence before him, he must come to the conclusion that Gummack was a . lodger, and therefore the hotelkeeper was justified in supplying him and his friends with liquor. There could be no conviction for unlawful exposure for j sale, because that took place during a legal transaction. The case would be dismissed-