MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 22 July 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HOKITIKA

THURSDAY, JULY 31st., 1821.

(Before H. W. Bundle Esq., S.M.)

afternoon sitting

His Worship resumed hiß seat at 2.10 p.m. ANOTHER (LICENSING CASE

Police v. J. L. Fowler (Mr Murdoch) licensee of Central Hotel, a cha.T ge of supplying liquor after hours. A plea of not guilty was entered. A charge against W. Mills of Marianui of being on licensed premises (Central Hotel) at the same time, was dealt with at the same time. Constable Fidwoilyn deposed on June lltli. he saw the defendant, Mills get off the railway platform at Hokitika, and heard him say lie had just come from Grey mouth and that lie lived at Mananui. Heard Mills say hurry up I want to get bottle of beer. Saw him gO into the Central Hotel. Went in and saw the licensee give Mills a bottle of beer and aleo a glass of beer. Tfeard Mills say he was not a boarder, lbs be was a traveller. Mills did not drink the glass of beer. To Mr Murdoch—Mills little boy, also had a bottle ol beer in his band. Have seen Mills at the hotel before. He stays there when in town.

Sergeant King deposed on 11th. June at 8.50 p.m. lip saw the defend ant Mills and his boy hurrying in the direction of Stafford Street. Heard him say: “Hurry up, 1 want to get a bottle of beer.’’ Saw tin- man enter the front door of the Central Hotel. Followed soon after and on entering the bar parlor saw Mills alongside the bar slide. The bov had a bottle ol beer', and ihp licensee handed Mills a glass of beer. Asked Mills if he were a boarder and he said no, he was a traveller and that be wanted to catch the Ross train if lie could. The glass of bepr was taken back by the license The bottom half of the slide door was apen and the licensee «a‘- inside alone Witness asked if Mills was a lodger and Fowlor said he thought so. Witness said that Mills had said ho was not a hoarder, To Mr ■Murdoch.-Went" into the bar through the slide of the bar, bottom half. Knew that Mills did stay at the ImtoJ that night and chat he was in the habit of staying there. For the defence Mr Murdoch led the following evidence: Joseph L. Fowler deposed he was licensee of the Central Hotel and the defendant. On June Jlth. he was in the front pajrlor alone- Mills came into the hotej with his son, and said he had been to Grey-mouth, Mills generally came to stay at his place about pay day. Put in his book showing regular periods of staying at the hotel. Mills got 2 bottles and a glass of beer. The police took the two bottles. ,Sorgt. iKng did not go into the bar. Mills stayed at the hotej that nigliL. When Mills came in l,ie took it that ho was staying the night. It was usual for Mills to get a couple of bottles to take up to his loom as he often left early in the morning before witness was up. There was no attempt at concealment. The front door was wide open.

To Sorgt. King.—He denied that Sorgt King went into the bar. Hid not tell the Sergt. that Miffs was a boarder. The only questions asked witness was what was in (lie bottles. He thought that Mills was going to stop that night. » Thomas Mills deposed lie was a bushman at 'Mananui. Had been to Grey and got back l»v the 9 o’clock train, end went to the Central Hotel. Witness got a couple of twit ties of lieor to take up to his room as usual, so that he could take them away with him early next morning. The Sergt did not go into the bar.

To Sergt. King Had no intention of going home that night when he got out of the Grey train. TTe would swear the Sergt. was not in the b-"-while witness was there. He told the Sergt. that lie was a traveller and lie was going to stay the night.

Mr Murdoch addressed the Bench at. some length.

His Worship said the defendant had been charged with two offences. The liability was east on the licensee before lie supplied liquor after hours to find out if the person supplied was a hone fide lodger. He was satisfied Alills had no definite decision to stay t! night and was not entitled to receive liquor. Defendant had sold liquor to a person not a lodger. 'Hie licensee would be convicted and fined £4 and costs 7/- on one charge and the other would he dismissed. AI ills would also be convicted and fined 40/- and costs