ANTI-SHOUTING LAW.

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2916, 31 October 1916, Page 7

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW.

MORE CASES

v A BARMAID PINED £5

"EXTRAORDINARY' OCCURRENCE"

Further anti-shouting oases were heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when tbe licensee of tho Clarendon Hotel, Manners Street, and ai barmaid at the same house were before the Magistrate. Tho barmaid is Joan Lang, who was charged with, on October 7; having knowingly sold intoxicating liquor in respect of which an offenco against the War Regulations Act, lfJl6, was committed, or mended to bo Committed, by some other person. There wero two similar charges against Lang. Frederick Dobson, the licensee, was charged witih- having permitted the commission of the offences. Mr. L. G. ■iteid, S.M., was on the bench. Inspector Hendrey appeared for tho police, and-Mr. M. Afyers for the defendants.

Inspector Hendrey said thatin brief, the offence alleged was that tbe' barmaid bad sold liquor to a constable and a man named Cameron, for which drinks the constable had paid. Constable Symonds was called to give evidence. He said .that at 4.30 p.m. on October 7 he went to the Clarendon Hotel with Cameron and called for two drinks. Joan Lang served the drinks. •Later in the day he and Cameron visited the house again, and a similar thine occurred.

To Mr. Myers: He asked Lang if a jnan was privileged to shout, and sho said: "Yes. Why'notP" Mr. Myers submitted that the case must be dismissed because it had not beeu proved that the men- were served with beer. '

. His ' Worship immediately ruled against counsel. •'-.'' Joan Lang, the defendant, deposed that notices against shouting were posted in the bar of the hotel, and that the licensee had instructed her not ,to permit shouting. Sho had not permitted shouting. Frederick Dobson stated that Lang had been with him for five years, and had always been careful in. carrying out instructions. He had told her not to permit ishouting, and to bo careful . .that no one "got any tricks on." "He had observed her preventing shouting. Mr.'Myers submitted that the case must be dismissed. He remarked on the fact that the police had previously secured an adjournment of this case to call a witness, but that the witness had not been called. Giving judgment, His Worship said he could not conceive that a po]ioo officer would deliberately commit perjury over such a case. At this stage, Cameron, who had been mentioned as the constable's companion, walked forward from the back of the court. Mr. Myers rose and interrupted' His (Worship, saying: "1 undorstand that Cameron is here and wants to give evidence." His Worship said it was outrageous for anyone to wish to tender evidence after he saw which way the Court was deciding. "Anyhow," he added, to Mr. •Myers, "it is wrong, to interrupt the Court in the course of delivering judgment. You ought to know that yourself." His Worship described this affair as an extraordinary occurrence. The decision of the Court was that Lang would bo fined £5, and the cases against Dobson 'dismissed. *■ Mr. Myers, seeking a chance for appeal, asked the Court to increase the ' fine to above £5, but tho Court rataed,. and said that tho Legislature had enacted that in cases of email fines there . should not bo an appeal, and therefore , it had been held that it was wrong to_ I increase a fine by a shilling or so for' the purpose of making an appeal possible. Mr,. Myors persisted iu arguing the matter, and the. Magistrate informed him that tho had already givenits decision., Mr. Myers atill urged his view, and declared that he had had "a lot of experience." His Worship: I was a lawyer before you were, so you need not talk of experience.