ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2911, 25 October 1916, Page 6

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

MORE CASES

A BARMAID FINED £5

APPEAL REFUSED

Two more anti-shouting cases were decided in Wellington yesterday. A case against tho licensee of tho Britannia Hotel (Airs. M'Enroc) was dismissed, and in a case against a barmaid at the same house (Mrs. M'Garry), a fine of £5 was entered. Two further cases —one against a licenses and the other against a barmaid—were adjourned till Monday. Judgment was given by Mr. L. G. Rcid, S.M., in the case in which Margaret M'Garry, a barmaid at tlio Britannia Hotel, was charged that being a servant of the licensee, she, on October 9, knowingly sold intoxicating liquor in respect of which an offence against the additional regulations under tho War Regulations Act, 1914, was committed or intended.

His Worship observed that counsel for the defendant (Mr. J. J. M'Grath) had raised the question of whether an offence had been disclosed, and had asked him to look into the question. He had done so, and had come to the conclusion that the defendant must be convicted. Mr. M'Grath had raised a point to tho effect that no offenco was committed through the constable shouting. Ho would hold that if a constable produced a half-crown and bought drink for others there was an offence. Tho cases cited by counsel did not touch the main point oounsel had raised, but only concerned tho question of the corroboration by evidence of accomplices. It had been held that accomplices and spies were very different people. An accomplice was one who confessed himself a criminal,

but a spy might be a perfectly honest man. The evidence of the disguised policeman in this case was quite admissible. Moreover, thero was ovidence for tho prosecution by two witnesses, the one a policeman, tho other not a policeman, so that the police evidence had corroboration. A Chance to Appeal Denied. 3"r. M'Gratli: Did he corroborate tho police evidence? His Worship: Yes. Mr. M'Gratli: 1 understood that ono of the two swore that a certain drink was beer, and that the other swore it was whisky. His Worship: That is only a mere detail. His Worship said that tho question of tho barmaid's innocence of the act was raised. Tho defendant had said that she had not "knowingly" broken tho law. That was not sufficient evidence of innocence. The defendant had been a hotelkeeper herself at onq time, and was now a barmaid. It was impossiblo to think that she could do a thing of that kind without knowiug it. Defondant committed an offence, and she would bo fined £5. Mr. M'Grath: Will your Worship make the fine £5 Is. (This was to ob-, tain , a chancc of appeal.) . His Worship: No. I won't make it £5 Is. Mr. M'Grath: There is an important question of law involved. His Worship said that ho did not see that, and in any caso- the Supremo Court had 6aid it was wrong to increase penalties for tho purposo counsel had suggested. Sir. M'Gratli said tho question ho wished to havo decided was very important, and the matter was very serious for defendant, who would be debarred from working at her calling for six months.

His Worship: If I had any doubt as to the law or tho facts, I would grant your request, but I have not.. Counsel "Can Only Protest." Mr. M'Grath: Well, none of us are infallible, Your Worship. His Worship: I don't say I am. Mr. M'Grath: It would not bo tho first, time this Court was found not to be infallible, and I might say that we have'taken further advico in this matter. His. Worship: I don't alter my opinion about it. I think lam right. Mr. 1 M'Grath: The olfcct of your refusal is to deny this woman the privilege of appeal. His Worship: I must refuse. Mr. M'Grath: Well, I can only enter a protest against your refusal. Even tho Supreme Court would do it. His Worship: I refuse to do what tho Supreme Court decided is wrong. .Mr. M'Grath: Does Your Worship mind telling mo what that isP His Worship: Raising an amount or a fine after a decision lias been given. Mr. M'Grath: I am quite satisfied that tho circumstances in the case commented upon arc not similar to the circumstances in tliis one. Eventually, His Worship remarked that Mr. M'Grath could Taise the question again at some other timo. Britannia Licensee Charged. Katlierinc M'Enroe, the licensee of the Britannia Hotel, was charged with having permitted the offence mentioned in M'Ganys case. Katie M'Enroe, daughter of the licensee, was called by Mr. Myers. She said she was a sort of manageress for her mother, who was elderly. Notices wore, posted in every bar in the house, and the bar attendants were told not to "shout" or permit "shouting." His Worship: How many girls are employed in the bars? Witness: Two. Mr. Myers: Did you yourself go round to sec that the regulations were being observed P Witness: Yes.

Mr. Myers: You work in the bar at times ?

Witness: Yes; relieving, and at busy times. Mr. Myers: You know that Mrs. M'Garry, one of your barmaids, is charged with a breach of the anti"shouting". regulations P Witness: I do. Mr. Myers: Were you in the bar at that time? Witness: I was not. Mr. Myers: When did you first hear of the charge? Witnoss: When the sergeant of police informed us. Inspector Hcndrey: Your mother Is not as young and as strong as sho used to be, and tho management of tho hotel has to a great extent .fallen on you, I understand ? Witness: Yes. Inspector Hcudroy : Have you done all in your power to abolish tho bookmaker in and about your hotel? Mr. Myers laughed in protest of such a question. Inspector Hcndroy: I contend that if a person is lax regarding ono law, sho may be lax regarding another. What are Reasonable Precautions? His Worship decided against the lino of cross-oxaminatiou tho Inspector had set out upon. Inspector Hondrey remarked that in any case he would take Miss M'iEnroc's word (on or off oath) as true.

Mr. Myers asked if tho prosecution desired him to call Mrs. M'Enroe, tho licensee of tho house.

Inspector Bendrey: Oh, no. I have no wish that you should do so.

His Worship: But tho Court, you know, must be satisfied that reasonable, practical steps were taken by

the licensee. Merely putting up notices and leaving it at that may not ho reasonable precaution. . Mr. Myers: I think Your Worship will lind that in most cases the licensee, who lias <i great deal at stake, is really anxious to comply with the regulations. I know that is the decision they came to when tlio regulations wero disoussed. His Worship: Yes, but tlie Court must be quite satisfied that all reasonable, practical precautions wero taken. Katherine M'Knroe, tho of tlio hotel, said that from timo to time she went through the house to see that all was going right. Mr. llyers: Havo you seen any "shouting" ? Witness: No.

That closed tlio case. . , His Worship: In tins case it is difficult to say what are practical means of preventing; "shouting ' It seoms to uio 011 the evidence called liero tliat they have taken reasonable precautions. They put notices up, and gave tlio two barmaids instructions not to permit "shouting," if one believes the evidence, and Ido in this caso. Beforo I could enter a conviction here I think there should bo evidence of,their standing bv and permitting it.' Inspector Hcndrcy: And add to that the good reputation of the house! Hir Worshiji: Yes. In those circumstances I consider that the caso should bo dismissed.