LIQUOR AFTER 6 O'CLOCK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 134, 23 February 1918, Page 8

LIQUOR AFTER 6 O'CLOCK

A PUBLICAN CONVICTED. Some interesting points were involved in a reserved judgment delivered by .Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., yesterday in the cases brought against Joseph Stuart, licensee of the Imperial Hotel, who was charged on two informations, namely: (a) With having exposed liquor for sale during the time his premises were directed by the Licensing Act to be closed; and (b) with having kept his premises open after hours for the solo of liquor. The facts as set out in the judgment were that on January 19, at 7.45 p.m., two police officers went into the hotel, entering by the door leading in from Garrett Street. The door was open, and defendant and another ma.n ivere • standing near it. The Garrett Street entrance, led into a passage and on to a pair of sliding curtains, which were drawn across the ent.ranco to a privato bar. Between the curtains there was the lighted bar. and the barman could be seen through a wire mesh pcrcen. At the outer side of the bar were two soldiers, one of whom had in his hand a glass, from which he was drinking. All inspection of the glass showed that it had contained whisky. There was' another empty glass on the countei 1 , but that disclosed no trace ot alcohol. The screen was down and bolted when tlie police arrived. The explanation made for the barman s presence .in the bar was that he stopped in the bar until 6 p.m. and returned at 7 p.m. to clean up. There was iio reason to doubt the explanation. The barman denied that he had supplied liquor to either of the soldiers. Despite denials there was no reason to douht the police evidence, as the possession by the soldier of the glass containine whisky had not been accounted for. The irresistible inference from all the facts was that the liauor was sold by the barman to the soldier who was seen drinking it. The other question ivas: At the time of the sale, was the soldier a lodger within the meaning of the Licensing Act? The onus of proving that rested on the defendant. That had not been discharged. It was s iP n '- fic'ant that although the soldiers had preceded ' the police by only a. minutes, yet they were found standing in the bar unci not in conversation "with the licensee's wife, who attended to all lodgers. His Worship said that he must find that the soldiers were not lodgers. He must also find that, the premises were own for the sale of liouor and that liquor'was exposed for sale. True the (urtains were drawn across the private bar and the wire screen was down and bolted when the police entered, but how could an hotel bar he said to be closed when it was lit up and behind there was a bar attendant having facilities for iinboltinrc the screen and supplying liquor? "All the circumstances lead to the inference that notwithstanding the bolting of "the screen a discreet person could have procured, and on the evening in question one soldier did procure, liquor on application to tho barman." The defendan 1 was convicted on one information and'fined £10 and costs 7s. The Magistrate addpd: "It has not, however, been proved that defendant in any wav connived at the salo effected or'been negligent in carrying out his business, and" his licence will not be endorsed." , , , At the hearing Actmg-Sub-Insnector Emerson prosceuted and Mr. H. ).'\ O'Leary appeared for the defendant.