ANTI- "SHOUTING" LAW

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 225, 11 June 1918, Page 7

ANTI- "SHOUTING" LAW

BREACH AT THE BRITANNIA HOTEL

BARMAID FINED £5

A case arising out of the anti-"shout-ing" regulations was heard before. Mr. W. O. Hiddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, ■ when William M'Kee was charged that on May 25 last at the Britannia Hotol he purchased liquor for consumption in tho bar of such premises lor Hobcrt. Cameron, Robert M'Laughliu, James Delvin, and John Kinney. These four men were also charged with receiving liquor alleged to have been purchased by M'Kee. Mete Anderson, a barmaid at the Britannia, and Bror Otto Englundh, the licensee of the premises, were charged with permitting "treating" to take place. Inspector Marsack prosecuted on behalf of the police, Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for defendant Anderson, o,nd Mr. T. Young represented Englundh. Tho other defendants were not represented by counsel.

Constnble Hedgeman stated that in company with Constable Hall he went into the front bar of tho Britannia Hotel about. 5.40 p.m. on May' 25. He called for drinks for himself and Constable Hall. They each put,down a shilling, but the young lady took the price of the drinks out of Constable Hall's shilling and gave witness his money baok. Witness said he saw M'Kee buy drinks for' his four friends and pay for them with a half-crown. Sergeant Lopdell afterwards' came into the bar, and witness and Constable Hall pointed out to him what had occurred. Tho bnrmaid remarked that each of the men had paid for their own drinkß, and the men Btated they were expending' the proceeds of some club fund distribution.

To Mr. O'Leary: He did not see any man buy liquor for consumption off the premises. Tho drinks purchased by M'Kee were three beers, one whisky, and a stout..

Mr. O'Leary: What is the price of whisky?—"ln somo bars you can got it for 6<L"

Mr. O'Leary: I suggest to you that if tho whisky cost more than 6d. a sum of something' like 3s. would have been placed on the counter, and that you were mistaken in thinking that the half-crown was meant as payment, for the'five drinks you mention. To Mr. Young: The notice prohibiting the practice of "treating" was not in ft very conspicuous position. Witness did not see Mr. Englundh about.tho bar at the time. . Corroborative evidence was given by Coustablo Hall. Mr. O'Leary: What price is paid for whisky?—"! understand it is 9a." If whisky is 9d., tho price for these drinks should have been at least. 2s. fld.?—"Yes, but it was not on this occasion."

You nro certain that tho 2s. 6d. was not passed for a flask of whisky?—"l am certain of it".

.Sergeant. Lopdell gave evidence of ft similar nature.

Defendant M'Koe, in the course of cvidenoe, said each man pnid separately for his drink. Witness paid half-a-crown for a flask of whisky. >Ho paid a shilling for his drink and recoived threepence back in change. , Evidence that they also bought their own refreshments was givon by Cameron, M'Laughlan, Delvin, and Kinney. His Worship held on tho ovidonce that the defendants M'Kee, Cameron, M'Laughlan, Delvin, and Kinney must be convicted. It. was not likely that the who were on tho look-out, for this particular kind of offence, would have deliberately concocted tho story. It did not need' a person of any great intelligence to soo that tho regulations wore very wide and a vory slight action might constitute a breach.' Each -defendant had stated that ho purchased his own drink. If that were so the con-stables-would surely have seen that the various amounts were registered on the cash register. Each of the defendants would be fined 20s. '

In view of this finding Mr. O'Leary intimated that ho would offer no evidence in Miss Anderson's case.

Defendant wa9 lined £s,< N His Worship making nil. order that any regulations which- might affect tho defendant's employment should not oporato in tho prosent case.

Seeing that a notice forbidding "shouting" was oxhibited in the bar, His Worship dismissed the case against the licensee. /