Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUNDAY TRADING.

AT PRINCESS THEATRE HOTEL, LICENSEE FINED. ' I At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., Robert William Allen, licensee of the Prine-Ess Theatre Hotel, was clmrged with having unlawfully kept his premises open for the sale of liquor on Sunday, October IG. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. T. M. WilI ford appeared for accused. ! John Danahy, umbrella maker, residing at 27 Jessio Street, statod that, on the morning of October 16, ho went to the Prinoess Theatre Hotel, saw . the porter, and asked him if there was. a chance of getting a couple of bottles ot beer. The porter replied that ho did not know. Two other men presently appeared, and then the proprietor came on the scene. Tho proprietor said: Come along boys," and opened the bar. Witness subsequently asked for two bottles ot beer and was served, learning later that one bottle was stout and one beer. Oil leaving the hotel, witness was by two policemen in. plain clothes, and taken to Mount Caol; Station, where .lie made a' statement, afterwards returning to tho hotel with the policemen. To Mr. Wiiford: He was not a frequenter 'of the Princess Theatre Hotel, but bad been there before, and was there On Saturday night. It-was not a fact that. he put 2d. down on Saturday night and demanded a whisky. Iho barman did not refuse him. He did not make use of a certain expression (shown to him), and the barman did not put him out. He did not say to tho barman, "I'll got oven with you," and did not "plant" two bottles of boer m the yard on Saturday; night nor on Sunday morning. . • . , _ >_, Sergeant M'Eory, ot Mo.unt Cook Station, stated that he was on duty ill plain clothes in Lome Street on the Sunday in question with Constable Munro, and about three minutes after arrival saw three men como out of the door of the Princess Theatre Hotel. Two men went round tho corner, of ..Tory. Street, and witness accosted the other man Danahy, and found two bottles in his pocket. Witness endeavoured to get back, into the hotel, but/did. not succeed in eetting his knock answered. AVitness - ■ then, took Danahy to the.'station, and.got his state/ ment. Later witness returned to the hotel with Danahy; who ; 'pointed;;but tho licensee,: Allen, ;as'. tho ..man , who .had served him. ; Allen . denied that Danahy had been served, but stated that Danahy had asked,for liquor, and had been refused and put off the premises. , - For the defence,- Thomas Tracy, barman at. the Princess Theatre ,' Hotel, stated that Danahy came into the hotel on Saturday night, October 15, put down 2d. and wanted a whisky. Witness refused him,, and told him' ho' could not get a whisky if ho had 6d. as ho looked under age.. >Vitness then pii.t .Danahyout.. He also.alkged that Danahy Used an improper expression, and had threatened :to "get even." ' •'"■•'.:•''•■. Arthur Johnston, porter at the hotel, stated that Danahy had;'asked for a drink on the Sunday • morning, but had been refused and put off the premises. ; •'■ David' M'Lachlan, labourer, and Phillip McCarthy, driver, stated that they called :at the hotel, on' Sunday, morning, to see a boarder named Kipling/ They wore at the door when Danahy was bsing eject^. Robert: William Allen, .licensee of tue hotel, corroborated Tracy's' evidence as to what had occurred on . the Saturday night, and stated that- when" Danahy. calkd and. asked fori-liquor- on. Sunday morning ho had been .refused and put off the premises at once. Mr. Wiiford 'submitted that" the evidence went to show that liquor had not been served to 'Danahy. He suggested that tho "charge was the outcome, of a "put up" job by Danahy to get'even for the-treatment which he had received on the Saturday night. . Tha' magistrate said that there was: certainly a conflict of evidence;:' but' he held that the weight of it wsi-t.against the. licensee,', and a, conviction;ironld be recorded. ;A : fine of £10 was.t imposed with costs 9s. . Security for knve of appeal wirs-f«etr*cH^l&--lte7 j, and; payment of fi'n'e""and"*Costs. . -.-; ,; -

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19101025.2.3

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 956, 25 October 1910, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
679

SUNDAY TRADING. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 956, 25 October 1910, Page 2

SUNDAY TRADING. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 956, 25 October 1910, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert