MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 5 June 1920, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

FRIDAY, JUNE 4th, 1920. (Before E. 0 .Levvey, Esq., S.M.) The Court resumed at 3.50 p.m. A LICENSEE CHARGED.

The Police charged William Arthur Shad bolt (licensee of Occidental Hotel) with having sold liquor during prohibited hours; with having opened the premises during prohibited hours foxsale of liquor, and with having allowed liquor to be consumed during prohibited hours. A plea of not guilty was entered to all charges. Defendant was not represented by counsel. Sergt. McCarthy stated the defendant was the holder of a temporary license for the Occidental Hotel. Giving evidence, Sergt. McCarthy stated at 10.40 p.m. on Saturday Ist. May saw three men come out of the back portion of Occidental Hotel premlises. With Constable Quinn, went in through the back door, which was wide open, and in a room opposite side of bar, the defendant was sitting with a local resident named Dee. On the table were three glasses. Two of them had marks of froth, but otherwise were empty, and one contained beer, this being in front of Dee. When he went in, asked defendant for an explanation, who said he knew nothing about it. Then asked the local resident if he had anything to say. The defendant turned'to Dee aid said “You know nothing about it either.” Dee acknowledged the glass was his find that it contained beer. Found the bar door was shut, and no one else about the passage or rooms. On returning to the parlor, the defendant gave no explanation. Then questioned .Dee, who said lie had come into the hotel just, a few minutes before. That-lie had met a man on the ,■ street who asked him to come in and have, a drink. That lie had come in and had the glass of beer. The man who had met him had shouted for him, hut he could not sav who the man was as he did not know him, butevidently the man knew him or he would not have invited him to have the drink. He might have been a hoarder hut he did not know. Then two men came into the room, find they said the y were hoarders,. Asked if either of' them had shouted for the other and, they stated they had not. Defendant was asked at least three times for an explanation of how tho beer was obtained, hut .none was given bv him. ,To defendant—He was not told by the two hoarders that they had had drinks out of them.

Constable Quinn gave evidence generally corroborating that, of Sergt. McCarthy. This was the case for the Crown. William Arthur Sliadbolt deposed he was licensee of the Occidental Hotel. Remembered the Sergeant and Constable coming in where a local man, Dee was present. There were three glasses on the table. T old the Sei gcant that the man knew nothing about the glasses. Told the Sergeant that boarders had a drink out of the three glasses on the table. The two hoarders and himself were having a drink when the local resident came in, the latter sitting down on a sofa, from which one of the boarders had just got up from. The hoarders had just left the room when the police c a mo in and he told the Sergeant that this man (the local resident) knew nothing about the glasses.

To the Sergeat —Did not say lie (witness) knew nothing about it. He said that Dee, present, knew nothing about the glasses on the table. He told the Sergeant that he had one of the glasses on the table. The one glass had only a drain in the bottom.' He thought that when the Sergeant came in he was , all right and that, they wanted to know about the other man, Dee, who had no drink in the house that night. John Peter Stankey deposed he was a. farmer of Waitnlm. He was in the hotel on May Ist. Had a drink and left a little drop in the glass. He had been sitting on the sofa and then got up and stood by the fire when Dee came in and sat on the sofa. Told one of the, police that he had a drink. To the Sergeant—He was a boarder at the hotel when lie came to town. After having a drink ho was on the way to bed when the Sergeant c ame in, and saw him Saw Deo come in, hut he did not have a drink while witness was present. He went out of the room and after coming hack he was not asked b\ anyone if he had had a drink out of ally of the glasses. Norman Inglis, deposed he was a foundry worker residing at the Occidental hotel. He remembered the police coming in, previous to that with Stankey and the defendant had a drink. While there another man came in and sat on the sofa. Then went out and the police came in. The Sergeant did not ask witness if he had a drink or if ho had shouted for the man who had come in.

.To the Sergeant—Was in the pas-, sage when the police came in. He was going up to bed. Did not do so. Waited a while and then went into the parlor again. 1 Did not see the Sergeant go to the bar door. Went back to the room for curiosity sake. Thought he was asked by someone if he had had a drink and he said yes. Would not say that he was asked if he had shouted for the man in the room.

To the Bench—There were three glasses on the table. Ho knew his own was empty. There may have been, a little left in Stankey’s. This was the case for the defence. His Worship in giving judgment said in weighing the evidence he c-ould not see that that of the two last witnesses was of much assistance as they could not remember anything of value. Apparently they were not interested in the matter. That was taking the l best view of it. He therefore had to rule their evidence out. The weight of evidence was therefore divided between the definite statement of the defendant,

that of the latter was nearly as defective as that of his witnesses, and he gave no explanation of how the beer had come on the table or why Dee had been allowed in. He could not accept his version and must convict, considering it a, deliberate attempt to cloak

up a deliberate breach of the law. At this stage Mr Sellers who was present to watch proceedings on behalf of the owner of the premises (Mrs Hall) made an appeal that no endorsement should be made on the license.

His Worship after consideration agreed to this request, and convicted the defendant on the charge of opening the premises for sale, a fine of £lO and costs 7/- being inflicted. On the charge of allowing the consumption of liquor, a conviction was recorded with a fine of £lO and costs 7/- and on the charge of selling, a. conviction without fine was recorded, a total of £2O 14s.