ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 74, 20 December 1917, Page 11

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

CASE COLLAPSES

IDENTIFICATION INCOMPLETE

At, tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. S. JS. M'Carthy, S.M., the polico proceeded against .Richard Dwyer, licensee of tho Empire Hotel, and Josephino Murphy and Winifred Wilson for permitting treating on tho promises, contrary to the War Regulations. Inspector Marsack prosccuted and Mr. M. Myers appeared for the accused. The case against Miss Murphy was taken first. Constable G. L. Corcoran,'in his evidence, stated that on Saturday, November 3, about 7.50 p.m., bo visited tho Empire Hotel in company with Constablo Phillips. They entered a small compartment, called for drinks and were served by tho barmaid. Two soldiers and a civilian entered tho compartment, and tho civilian called for three long beers. Ono of tho soldiers altered his drink to a medium beer. After the drinks worn served the civilian placed oil the'counter Is. 6d„ which the barmaid accepted. None of the soldiers paid for their drinks. Altogether ho had six porter-Ejaffs that evening and was perfectly sober. With Sergeant Willcocks and Constablo Phillips, witness visited tho hotel on tho Monday morning following, and asked to see tho two barmaids who had served thorn with drinks.

Cross-examined, witness did not hear Sergeant Willcocks give any description of tho men supposed to have been served. The sergeant asked to see the two girls who had sorved in tho bar on the Saturday night, and then pointing to Miss M'Lauglilan, asked: "Is this the one?" Constablo Phillips, answered "Yes." When: questioned, Mies M'Langhlan said sho had not served on that side of the bar on Saturday night. Witness crossed the name of Miss M'Lauglilan out of his book, but the sergeant did not tell him to do so. Witness was surprised to hear that Miss Murphy was upstairs until 8 o'clock on the Saturday night. Ho was doubtful whether Miss M'Lauglilan was the barmaid who had served the drinks in question, but had said nothing to the sergeant on that point. Constable Phillips was suro that no mistake had been made. To Inspector Marsack: The mistake about Miss M'Lauglilan had nothing to do with the charge against Miss Murphy. Mr. Myers: It shows tho infallibility of tlio polico. Constable William Phillips stated that ho was in the company of tho previous witness when they paid a round of visits to various hotels on the night; in question. When asked to point out the barmaid, who was in court, ihe witness pointed to a young lady who had nothing at all to do with the case.

To Mr. Myers: Witness admitted that ho had mado a mistake in tho identity of the barmaid. Ho did not remember hearing Sergeant Willeooks telling Constable Corcoran to cross out the .name of Miss M'Lauglilan. Ex-Sergeant J. S. ■ "Willcocks stated that at about 9.30 a.m. on Monday he visited the bar of tho Empire Hotel in company with tho two constables. There were then no barmaids oil duty, but when tho two girls camo down to the bar Miss Murphy was pointed out as the offender. "When Miss M'Lauglilan came in Constablo Corcoran said sho was tho other barmaid who had committed a further breach of the regulations, but sho denied havmg served in that part of tho bar, and both constables appeared satisfied that they had niado a mistake. Mr. Myers pointed out that both constables had been mistaken as to the identity of tho second girl, while one constablo had actually pointed out in court a young lady who had nothing to do with tho matter. ' His Worship eaid tho regulations were very drastic and had been purposely made so. It wvs for tile defendant to prove that no breach had been committed. Before a caso of tho kind could be allowed to proceed tho evidenoe of identification should be, if not overwhelming, at least convincing. In the present case tho evidence was not convincing. The information would therefore be dismissed. Tho charges against Richard Dwyer and Winifred Wilson wero then withdrawn.

BARMAN CONVICTED

ROYAL OAK HOTEL CASE

Reserved judgment was delivered in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the caso against James O'Hanlon, barman of the R-oyal Oak Hotel, who was charged with committing a breach of the War Regulations in permitting shouting. Tho caso for tho polico was that Constables Corcoran and Phillips visited the hotel at 7 p.m. on November 3 and saw two unknown men, one of whom ! remarked to nis companion; "Is it [ going to be tho same?" and getting an affirmative reply, ordered a. drink for each. One of the men placed a shilling on tho counter, and the other two shillings; that tho defendant James O'Hanlon pushed the Is. back' to the man who placed it on the counter and took up the 2s. placed by tho man who had ordered the refreshment,, and gave him Is. 2d. in change. For the defence it was denied that defendant made tho sale, and that he was 110 in tho public bar at any time between a quarter to and a quarter past 7 o'clock that evening. The defendant also stated that there was another barman a I the hotel not unlike liiin. and tho constables might liavo mistaken this_ other for the defendant- On the'morning of December 5. tho two constables, accompanied by Sergeant Willcocks, visited the hotel, and there identified tho defendant. "If tho defendant's defence of an alibi were honest, ho would have taken the earliest opportunity of disclosing it," the judgment proceeded, and tho defendant and his witnesses professed to ho guided by time-table, which was produced, but this time-table was merely a cop.V which had. not been made until sliortly after November 3. "All tho witnesses for the defence except' one were fellowemployees of tho defendant, and that one was an employee of a firm ivliich supplied the hotel with cordials. . I believe the evidence of tho constables, and I find that they have not mistaken tho defendant for some other person." Defendant was convicted, but at tho request of Mr. M. Myers, wlio_ appeared for the defence, the conviction is not to be entered until January, so that the defendant, who intended to appeal against the judgment, should not in tho meanwhile loso his employment.