NAPIER COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 29 November 1927, Page 6

NAPIER COURT

HOTEL LICENSEE CHARGED SELLING LIQUOR AFTER HOURS A LENGTHY HEARING. Selling liquor after hours on November 6, exposing liquor for sale after hours, and opening licensed premises after hours were the charges preferred against Bartholomew Francis O'Rourke, licensee of the Railway Hotel, at the Napier Court yesterday afternoon before Mr. A. M. Mowleni, S.M. Mr. J. Humphries, who appeared for tfie defendant, pleaded not guilty to all charges. Sergeant Quayle stated that on Sunday, November 6. in consequence of complaints regarding the Railway Hotel, he went to Port Ahuriri with Constable Prater, arriving there about noon. A few minutes later they saw two men enter the hotel by the back door and later leave. Shortly after another man approached from Ossian street carrying a parcel under his arm which had the appearance of a jar. Witness then entered the hotel and was standing in the passage facing the bar entrance when the defendant came out of the bar with the jar in his hand. He came straight towards witness who replied, when asked what was in the parcel, thaf 't was a hottie of beer and that he was taking it upstairs to a boarder.

BOARDER DENIES ORDERING BEER.

Witness went into a room at fhe side of ihe bar where he found Laurensoti, the man who had entered the hotel with the bottle under his arm. Witness then went upstairs and questioned the boarder named by the defendant, who Said that he had not ordered any beer. On coming downstairs again defendant still persisted that rhe boarder in question had ordered the beer and that he did not know that Laurenson was m the hotel. Laurenson denied having seen the bottle before, and stated he had gone to the hotel to use the 'phone. Witness, cross-examined, stated that he had never complimented defendant upon the way in ivhich he conducted the hotel; rather he had had to do the opposite. He was not prepared to swear that it was Laurenson whom he saw enter the hotel. He did not know that Laurenson was a captain on a lighter; he understood he was a watersider. Witness did not make any enquiries as to where the bottle came from as he did not think it was necessary. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable Prater. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr Humphries submitted that a pritna facia case had not been established. There had not been any evidence of exposure of liouor. nor had the liquor ever passed from the possession of the licensee: further there had been no proof that the premises were opined for the supply of liquor. Under the circumstances he held that he had no case to answer. His Worship stated that he was doubtful about the charge of exposure. Ho would not dismiss any of the charges, being of the opinion that the defendant had a case to answer.

The defendant in evidence, stated that he. with his wife, on the morning in question was stock-taking. While that was in progress Johansen came to the bar and ordered three drinks, leaving a large bottle to be filled. When the work was finished witness decided to take the bottle upstairs to Johansen. Just after leaving the bar door a man who was standing near the telephone room touched him on the wrist. Going along a bit further witness met Sergeant Quayle who asked. “What is that man doing there?” Witness replied, “I don't know; go and ask him.” The sergeant told witness to go back and he questioned Laurenson, who was in the telephone room, as to what he was there tor. The sergeant then went upstairs and questioned Johansen. Witness did not know' that Laurenson was on the premises. He often came in to use the telephone. Witness was of opinion, that the sergeant put the questions to Johansen in the hope of trapping him. Cross-examined. witness stated that he did not know why Sergeant Quayle should try to trap Johansen. Oscar Johansen was then called and stated that he took the bottle down to be filled. The door of the bar was closed. After evidence was heard from Captain Lake testifying that Laurenson had conversation over the telephone with him. the proceedings were adjourned until this afternoon. THREE MEN CHARGED. BREAKING AND ENTERING AND THEFT. Timothy O’Sullivan, John Henry O’Sullivan, and Joeph Daniel Boyie were charged yesterday afternoon with breaking and entering the premises of William Edward Saunders at Putorino on November 10 and stealing goods to the value of £3 13s 10d. They were further charged with stealing goods to the value of £l3 8s 10d, the property of Charles Melville Robinson. The cases, which were indictable, were heard by Messrs A. E. Renouf and P. Wright, J.P.’s. Detective-Sergeant Butler conducted the case for the police, and Mr L. A. Rogers represented the accused.

W. E. Saunders, storekeeper, of Putorino and Eskdale, deposed that on November 8 he was at Putorino for about an hour in the morning, and on the following day he returneo between 5.30 and 6.30, remaining until 8 that night, when he returned to Eskdale. He then noticed Boyle there. On Thursday morning he returned at 7.30 and found the door wide open, and the O’Sullivan brothers on the hotel verandah, about 12 feet from the store. They said they had seen no one about He called Miss Conway, his assistant and they examined the shop. The lock had beta forced off and several things in the shop had been disturbed —the credit file, lioxes of biscuits, and confectionery. He informed the police. Charles Melville Robinson then came into the shop, and accompanied witness to a whare where Boyle was found asleep, while there was aliii bedding where two other persons had slept. Witness yeased the whare from the hotel proprietor as a store room for chaff nnd bay. The room was usually padlocked. and it was so at 4.30 in the afternoon of November 7. They key was kept in the store, where it was on the day in question.

RETURNED TO THE STORE. Witness returned to the store and again saw the O’Sullivans, who stalled that a man had entered the store and taken some tobacco, saying he knew the proprietor well. The man. he said, had thrown a suitcase <*<>m the road on to a bank nearby. Later they described the man. whom witness recognised as a man named Thompson. Jack O’Sullivan told witness that two men had slept in the stables on Wednesday night, ana had left at 3 a.m. on Thursday. They said that they were quite readv to wait until the police came, as they had nothing to do with the theft. Witness returned. to the whare and moved some hay beside the bed, and discovered some article, which he recognised as being similar to those he had in stock. In the fireplace was found a tin of cigarettes, also several empty fish tins. The stable was then relocked, and the arrival of the police awaited. When the stables were subsequently re-searched by the police witness was present, and was able to identify the goods found both in and about the whare, as being identical to those :m his stock. In the three days .rior to the theft witness had not sold any goods to any of the accused. Cross-examined, witness admitted he had done business with Boyle in partnership with a Mr Stevens. He had from the O’Sullivan’s an order on Mr Ferney, and had advanced them money on it. Detective-Sergeant Butler, in reexamination: How long is it since you did business noth Boyle?—About twelve months. 'ou are the only person between Tutira and Mohaka who stocks this class of goods?—Yes. When did you get the older from the O’Sullivans?—After the offence and before Sergeant Wade arrived.

SALESMAN’S EVIDENCE. In evidence, Charles Melville Saunders said that he was a travelling salesman, residing at Napier, and from November 7 to 10 he was at Putorino. On the Tuesday witness saw Boyle at the hotel, also on the following day he was joined by the two other accused. Boyle did not seem to have anv money, as he was “cadging” cigarettes from witness. After this witness went to bed and, on getting up at 7.30 next morning, he heard that the store had been broken into. On looking at his ci.r he found that one of his suitcases and contents were missing. Someone then pointed out a suitcase, which witness was able to identify as being his, lying on a bank near the road. Some of the goods were scattered about, and the balance consisting of clothing, was missing. A portion of the contents of witness’ suitcase was found in thp whare. The remainder of the contents were found near the whare in a canvas bag Corroborative evidence as to rhe condition of the shop on the morning of the theft was given by Christine Helen Conway, who was m charge of the Putorino store and post office for Mr Saunders. Witness had seen the three accused at Waikari the previous day, but she had not at anv time sold goods to anv of the accused.

John McKav, an employee at the store at Putorino, also denied supplying any of the accused with goods Claude Octavius Thompson, a labourer. of Putorino. deposed that he stopped the night at the hotel. In the morning one of the O’Sullivans drew witness’ attention to the fact that the store was open, and also mentioned that there was a suitcase on the road; witness went down he road and put the suitcase on the bank. Witness later went to lh» shop to get a tin of tobacco, but n>, there was no one there he took a tm, as he knew Saunders well, and subsequently paid him for it. At this stage the case was adjourned until to-dav.