TREATING IN HOTELS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3056, 17 April 1917, Page 7

TREATING IN HOTELS

SEVERAL CONVICTIONS , . ■ . I "ACAINSf HOTEt.EMPLOYEES.

!. Florence Martin, barmaid at the (Dukeof Edinburgh Hotel, was; charged in the Magistrate's Court yesterday with i breach of the War* Reguktions .'in permitting ■ a customer to pay for ■'.She liquor consumed by another. Francis Joseph Oakes, licensee of the hotel, ?«« charged,-with allowing "shouting" ■an'his premises. 'Mr. M. Myers appeared for the'defendants. ' ''

■ The cases were said to be similar to those heard last week; Constable Frank Hedgeman stated that, acting on instructions, he • went "with Constable Goulding to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel on the evening of 'Saturday, March 10. He and Gouldine had drinks, for which- witness paitT Florence Martin served them with the drinks, and took the shilling'tendered iby... witness, jDn the following Monday, witness, with Sergeant Fitzpatrick and Constable Goulding, went to the hotel &nd saw the barmaid, who said- she oould not recolleot the incident and did'nob remember seeing theconstahles.

In answer to Mr. .Myers, Sergeant Fitzpatrick said the house was well conducted, and further stated that he knew the,, licensee, employed a man to patrol the bars and see that order was maintained and .'the laws, obeyed.

~:.- Franbjs Joseph Oa.kes, licensee'of the * J)uke of Edinburgh Hotel, in giviug evidence, stated., that he was not' in the ■bar' when the'.constables alleged they : -were" served "with liquor. There were Numerous placards in the bar warning 1 customers about the "shouting" regulations. Hβ employed two men to patrol the bars and see that there was no misconduct, and that-no breaches of the regulations were committed.- The employees had all been warned-4o be ' very careful to' observe the war regulations. - Miss Martin was. vary particu- ■' lar. in observing' the anti-"snouting" "regulations; arid had been abused by r'the customers ■'■for.'that.

j. Mr. Myers, foi'iliss • Martin, said that the defendant'was not in aposi■'■fcion to. dispute' the .evidence, of the ■constables, as.-she had no recollection of the matter;..;lf-the incident happened, it. Ijappened in the rush of business. Counsel suggested that the' offence- should be treated as an inad-vertent-one, and a-conviction recorded without a. penalty being, imposed. His >.-"Worship;, knew, what the indirect con- .' of a, conviction Tvould be. ■__ ■. The barmaid'was convicted, and the ;-xa«e against.the licensee was dismissed. ■ In flie afternoon the following barffiaids and barmen, convicted of permitting • "shouting" were sentenced: — '• Kate M'Enroe, Doris Carter, Florence .■• Martin,, George Bps'eley, arid Reginald Davis. ' .'■ "-> '■•''•' :• ' ■-'■

The Magistrate said: "I find from the 'evidence fthat.all oKthese were isolated cases: It has' 1 been shown that the two constables were in. the hotel bars as ■Jong as ten minutes in' some cases, .'and .they detected no , other ''shouting.'.'. Although the constables were engaged "in the execution of thejr duty the evidence shows that in one instance they each .took the trouble to pay for their drinks first, and one of them left a ten-shilling-note, part of tho change for a. pound note, on the counter. In , serving them with drinks a- second time 'the barmaid committed a-breach of 'the 'Apt,-but there was a distinction. -I ■irill impose a nominal penalty in each case, bearing in mind the fact that each of the defendants will be deprived of employment for a period of fix months. The penalty will be £2, with costs, 75.,, in each oase;" ■••-.'-.. ,-■...-*.■.