ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 123, 11 February 1918, Page 6

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

A BARMAN CONVICTED. "When the bar attendant in a publio bar of licensed premisec is seen to supply a glass of beei' to each of two patrons of the hotel, tho second glass of beer being supplied immediately after —almost contemporaneously with— the other, and one of the patrons then places half-a-crown on the bar counter, which the bar . attendant immediately picks xip and forthwith repairs to the cash register, in the. till of which he places the half-crown and on the register itself rings up the sum of 10d., the price of two glasses of beer, such as those supplied, and then forthwith places on the bar counter the sum of Is. Bd., which is taken possession of by the same patron that placed the half-crown on the counter, and the said person refused to show the Is. Bd. to the police officers who were at the time present at the hotel on duty, whilst the barman and the other patron each endeavoured to induce xhe police officers to refrain from reporting the matter, a< charge of 'treating' has been established against the two patrons and the barman," was the purport of a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday, in the case in which the police proceeded against Walter Ward Middleton, barman at the Cambridge Hotel, who was charged with committing a breach of the.War Regulations by knowingly selling ,to' \ one , Horace jeyes intoxicating. liquor for I consumption in the bar of the Cambridge Hotel by a person other than .[eyes. Horace Jeyes was charged with "treating" and James.Stuart Middleton with receiving intoxicating liquor purchased by Jeyes. After dealing with the legal aspect of the matter, His Worship went on to refer to the evidence. There were about forty persons in the bar at the time, some of whom were clamouring for drinks, and the barman and his assistants were very busy. Jeyes had a gallon jar of beer on the counter in front of him. Jeyes placed i glass of beer in front of J. S. Middleton, and immediately afterwards the barman said to Jayes, "What's yours?" Jeyes replied, "A beer," which was supplied him, and he placed half-a-crown on the counter in payment.' The constables hid behind a large barrel and observed the barman place a shilling, a sixpence, and two pennies on the counter in change for the half-crown. When asked by the police to show the change he received Jeyes replied: "I have any amount of '_ money in my pocket. I mind my own business. I have come from England. I pay my own way and I don't give a damn for anyone." The gallon of beer on the counter he said he had paid for previously. J. S. Middleton afterwards waited for the police and informed them that he would lose his position if anything was proved against him.^ J. S. Middleton denied having been "treated" by Jeyes, said that he did not know him, and that each had paid for his own drinks. Jeyes's evidence i was indefinite except that he emphatically denied "shouting" for Middleton. The barman also denied that Jeyes "shouted" for J. S. Middleton, and stated that Jeyes paid for a gallon ot beer and a glass of beer at the same time, but he did not remember the amount given hiny. The ringing up of lOd. on the cash register, which was the price of two glasses of beer, was another transaction altogether. All the defendants were found guilty, and were fined £10 each with costs, 7s. At the hearing Mr. H. F. O'Lewy appeared for all the defendants, and Inspector Marsack conducted the prosecution.