ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 10, 6 October 1917, Page 9

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

CASE AGAINST THE TERMINUS HOTEL

A LICENSEE CONVICTED

Before Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday Charles Frederick Priest, licensee of tho Terminus Hotel, and Mary Priest, his wife, wero charged with committing breaches of the anti-"shouting" regulations. They pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr. T. M. Wilford. 'Constable Scarry stated that on Satur--Bav, Soptomber 8, in company with Constable Brown, ho visited tho Terminus Hotel, and entered the private bar. Ho went there about 9.23 p.m. Tho licensee and his wifo and a barman wero in> llw bar serving. There were not many customers in tho bar at the time. Vμness saw the licensee serve a soid'ir and a civilian. Witness was standing about two yards away from the soldier with' Constable Black between rhem. Tho civilian was .on the other side of the 'soldier. The civilian paid a shilling for thtj two drinks, which wore consumed by the purchaser and his soldier friend. Tho civilian received no change. lho bar thon began lo £U-iip, owing lo it being half-time at His. Majesty's Theatre.Two officers in uniform came into the bar and called for brandies. Mrs. Priest served them, and one of the officers pn«| two shillings for the two drinks and received a shilling back. Ho had a dear view of the parties.- . To Mr. Wilford: Before reaching the hotel witness had taken a medium shandy and. twj) glasses of claret and ' lemonade, and had a shandy at tho lerminus Hotel. He was perfectly sobor.. There was no partition between witness and the licensee to obstruct tho view when the civilian and soldier were served. There wore three rows of\glasaeg on tho counter, but they did not hinder his view Witness eaw Priest take up a shilling, but he did not see any .change given. He did 1 not see a sixpence neat the glasses, nor did he see Priest pass, a sixpence over to the soldier. He waa watching them very carefully, for he was there for tho purpose. Only about six persons could stand at the bar at one time. There were about eight or ten persons between witness and the otacere, who were served by Mrs. Priest. Witness did not- hear the officers order Henneesy s three star brandy; if they had done so the shilling change would have , been correct. He heard Mrs. Priest eay that everyone must pay for his.own drmK. He. heard her say that two or three 'constable James Brown gave corroborative evidence, except that in respect to the two officers he stated that the coin tendered was half-a-crown, -while tne previous-witness said it was, 2a. The defence was a complete denial or the charge. Mr. Wilford pointed out that in ten years his clients had rover previously been before the Court on any charge whatever. They had never commitW a single breach of the Licensing Act and he claimed that then I'Otel was" the inost strictly conducted one in Wellington. He thought that it \>as hardly a case for conviction. . The' Magistrate,' ,after reviewing the evidence, eaid he was satisfied that the two- constables were sober when , thoy reached the Terminus Hotel, and uero there for a particular, purpose. Unless they were absolutely lying their evide.ice was worthy more of credence Uian that of the licensee and his wife, lie ivas satisfied that in the two cases shouting did take place, but he did not mean by that that the licensee and hie wife gave false evidence; they were too busy at the time probably to take note ot tho facts. He therefore convicted and fined Priest £5 and-costs, and Mrs. Priest was convicted, and discharged.