Alleged Breaches of Licensing Laws.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1941, 24 November 1906, Page 3

Alleged Breaches of Licensing Laws.

Before Mr Barton, S M„ yesterday, the oases agaiosi Frank Fordyoe, Albert Long, and George Patterson Priestley for breaches of the licensing laws were heard. The first case called on was EranK Fordyoe, charged with bring on the premises of tbefWaerenßa-i hikaHotel on 4th November, beiDg a Sunday when such premises should bave been closed. V Mr Stock eppoared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty, and Sergeant Williams conducted the oase on behalf of the police. Constable Doyle gave evidence Bimilar to that given in the oase of William Murphy, who was oonvioted on a l'ke charge on Monday. Shortly stated, witness visited the hotel on the day men, tioned, and found the defendant and two others together with the licensee and his brother in the commercial room of the hotel. The bar elide was open, and the liquor in the bat was exposed So view, Bv Mr Stock; Witness could not say whether there was anyshiDg in the conduot of Fordyce, Murphy or Long that wai ioounsutent «i h their position as Tovited guests. Witness saw no money whatever in the bat or room, and oould not ewear that there was any sale of , Sorgcani Williams: Both front and I aide doors of the hotel were open. The Sergeant: In your opinion, oon-i stable, would it be advisable for an intollisoot publican to ask a man under the iu- , finance of drink into his home ? i His Worship: That won't help me, 1 Sergeant, I oao judge that for myse F. , This concluded «he case for tuo pol-ce. j For the defence Mr Stock eaid he would bring three witnesses who. would I awoar that thoy were invited gues.s of the Undlord If any other view woro taken it would bo practically saying that they j had committed perjury, without one little of evidenoa biiog adouoed to the j °°Frank Fordyoe said he bad known Mr j Priestley about 16 months. He had been very friendly with the lioensee. The only time he visited the hotel was on the 4,b Somber On that day he left Gisborne a t about 10.30 a.m , in oompany with Mr Long. They went from town with the Sention of seeing Te Aral bridge and from there to go to the WaertDga a»hika hotel. The licensee had on several occasions’ invited witness out on a Thev went to see the Te Arai bridge and then to Pfieatloy’s hotel, wbioh tboy reached about a quarter to one. On arrival at the hotel thoy saw the licensee and Mr Morphy standing on tbe verandah. Mr Priestley asked Mr Long and witness to atay to lunob, and they agreed to do so, While standing on the verandah they heard tho lanobeon bell r'ng Oa going inside tho licensee said, •• You'd belter have an eppetiaor before lunch. They went into the commercial room, and all had a drink at Mr Priestley’s expense. No money passed between any of them, They

| had Innob thoro, but no ono paid for it. Thoy loft immodialoly after lunoh for tho To Aral bridge. Murphy was not under ibo inlluonoo of liquor. Witnons did not notioo euy sign of liquor upon him. Witness was conversing with Murphy, and if ho was at all inlosioatod must havo noticed it, From tho tiuio witness wont into tho hotol till ho loft bo oonsidnrcd thoy wero guests of Mr Piiontlny, and paid for nothing oonsumod on tho premises that day. By tho Sergeant: Witnoss was quito sure that ho was asked to havo lunoh before tho liquor, and would not have gono in unless Mr Prif alley had askod him. Albert Frodoriok Long, onginsor. living nl Gisborne, remomborod tho Ith November. On Chat day thoy wont to tho Waerenga a hika hotel Wiinosß corroborated Fordyoo'u ovidenoo in detail. Witnoss did not pay for anything or see any of tho other men pay. Murphy was sober, and did not behave as if ho was under ibo influenoo nf drink. By tho Sergeant: Witnoss board Murphy give ovidenoo tho othor day, when ho said fin bad threo or four drinks. Witnoss Intended luuohing with Mr Priostloy when thoy loft Gisborno. Witness only had ono drink, and was at tho bar about fivo minntrs. William Murphy gavo similar cvidonco of what occurred at tho hotol. Witnoss drove out with Mr liassmusscn, and when passing tho hotol Priestly stopped tho trap and asked witnoss to stay to lunch with tho othors. Witness would not havo stopped at tho hotel if ho had not been in- I viteil. Witnoss was not under tho influence | of drink. Ho had a drink before breakfast and two nftor. Witness knew exactly what lie was doing. By the Sergeant: Mr liassmusscn did not go into the hotel with him. They had lunch about 20 minutes past ono. sWlion tho constnblo camo thoy had boon in tho bar about four minutes George Patterson Priestley, licensee of Wacrouga-a-liika hotel, had known Fordyee about 10 months. Long and Fordyce arrived at tho hotel about 12.00 while witness was standing on tho verandah with Murphy, and witnoss invited them to stop to lunch. Witness said to Fordyco, “ I’m very pleased to sco you both out here. I havo invited Bill here to have lunch with me. Now you two havo como up wo may as well make it a general thing.” Thoy thanked witness. Thoy stood talking on the verandah some time, when the dinner bell rang. Then all wont into the hotel and witness asked his three guests into the commercial room to havo an appotisor. Aftonvards thoy had lunch. Witness did not charge them and had no intention of charging them for what thoy

had, but looked upon them as guests for that day, Murphy was sober when he arrived, and witness did not notice any signs of liquor upon him. By the Sergeant: On Sundays dinner took place at one at his houso. It was fully a quarter after the bell rang before they went in. Thoy woro standing in front of the bar for about five minutes. Stephen Priestley, fencer, brother of the licensee of the hotel, deposed that he was staying with his brother on the 4th November, He remembered Murphy, Long, and Fordyoe coming into the commercial room, where witness was sitting. They were with witness’s brother, He did not hear them ask for a drink, but saw they had one. Witness did not bob any money passed. His brothor was 11 shouting ” the drink, Murphy was sober. Witness spoke to Murphy, and did not notioe any signs of drink upon him.

His Worship said he had no reason to obauge his opinion. Toe oase was the same ae the previous one ; the defendant was on the premises unlawfully. He would be convicted and fiaed £l, with oosis of court 7s.

The case of Albert Long, who was similarly charged, was then oalled on. Mr Stock appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. He said the ovidenoe in this case was exactly the same as in the previous ease. His Worship had disb6* lievod tho evidenoe of these three youDg men, and had praotioally convicted them of peijary on the evidenoe of one man. His Worship : That is not tho oase before me now. I suppose you are willing that the evidenoe in Fordyoe’s case be ""Mistook (UseniVd, and'Long was'iinea m wita costs 2s. George Patterson Priestley, licensee of the Waerenga-a-hika Hotel, was then charged with exposing liquor for sale when the hotel was supposed to bo closed. Mr Stock appearod for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. He said the evidenoe in this oaso was praotioally the sama as in the previous oases. He quoted the oase of Ryland v. Foley, in which a friend of a publioan was iDvited to have a drink in a hotel after closing hours, when the five juslioea sitiing in the Supreme Court held there was nothing in the Licensing Aot to prevent this. To eonviot defendant in this oase it was neoessary for his Worship to find that the defendants in tho previous oases had all committed peijury, and he (Mr Stock) held there had not been one little of evidenoe adduced by the police to show that thoy wore other than bona fide guests of the licensee. If his Worship found they wero bona fide guests, the oaso of White v. Lester laid down that there oould be no exposure of liquor where drink was lawfully sold. . . His Worship reserved his deoision, stating that ho would give a written judgment to-day.