LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5160, 3 August 1927, Page 2

LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

PAEROA LICENSEE CHARGED.

COURT RESERVES DECISION.

At the local Magistrate’s Court on Monday, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., Ernest P. Fathers, hotelkeeper, Paeroa, was charged with supplying liquor to cei tain persons not lawfully entitled to be supplied. A similar charge was also preferred against Mrs Emma E. Fathers. Mr E. A. Porritt appeared for the defendants and entered ,a plea of not guilty.

Charges of being in the Commercial Hotel, Paeroa, on July 11 after hours were also preferred against A. W. Curtis and Arthur Vuglar, both of Paeroa. Mr R- S. Carden appeared for both defendants and mitered a plea of not guilty. , It wa;> agreed to take the. four 'cases together.

. In evidence Senior-Sergeant Maclean detailed the visit paid to the hotel on the night in question. The defendants were found in a sittingroom, and they werei drinking with some boarders. Vuglar was the first nu n to be questioned, and he stated that he was boarding on the preniises. Constable McClinchy, with his knowledge that Vuglar was a married man, queried his statement. At a tabie alongside was a. tray containing full glasses of liquor. Witness said he then left the room and interviewed Mrs Fathers, who stated that she had supplied the liquor on the understanding that it was for guests of a boarder named Corcoran. Curtis had stated that he was a., guest of ( Corcoran’s. The licensee was not at home, but later on witness said he met him in the street and told him about thfe incident. He- expressed surprise, and stated that he had given definite instructions to his wife about serving liquor after hours.

To Mr Carden witness said that Corcoran had told that Curtis was a guest. _

Corroborative evidence was given by Constable J. McClinchy. In opening for the defence of the licensee and his wife Mr E. A. Porritt referred to a law report case, and contended that the statements made by Mrs,. Fathers or the other defendants could not be used as evidence against the licensee. Since the hotels had been opened in Ohinemuri the licensee h.ad been particularly careful and scrupulous in regard to the sale of liquor after hours, and had given instructions that liquor was not to be served in his absence'. Authority was quoted to show that the licensee was not responsible for the sale of liquor made at any time by members of his staff dining his absence. Referring to the charge laid against Mrs Fathers Mr Porritt explained that before supplying liquor to Corcoran, who was a boarder, and in the absence of the licensee, she had made careful inquiries concerning the bona fldes of the two guests of Corcoran’s, Curtis and Vuglar. Three drinks only had been served. He quoted considerable authority in explanation of what constituted bona fide guests, and went on to show that the action of Mrs Fathers was quite justified u nder the circumstances. Ernest P. Fathers, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, said that occasionally he went out for awhile in tfie evenings. ,Qn such occasions he gave definite instructions with reference. to the serving of liquor after hours. Under the circumstances he would not have hesitated to serve Mr Corcoran as his wife had done. He had made a practice of doing everything possible, to ensure the safe and good conduct of the hotel.

To Senior-Sergeant Maclean defendand said that before going out that evening he had left the keys of the safe and bar with his. wife;. Mrs Fathers gave evidence of Mr Corcoran coming to her private sit-ting-room and asking for the licensee. On being told that he was out, Corcoran stated that he wanted drinks for himself and two guests. Op making sure the young men were guests she supplied the drinks. She had no authority to supply the liquor, but Mr Corcoran was' a boarder who had been in the house for a long times and it was done to oblige him. The drinks were paid for' by Corcoran, and were served in the commercial room. To Mr Maclean witness said that she could not account for a tray containing five glasses of liquor being on the .table. She had served a tray of three glasses only. The five glasses might have been there since six o’clock. She could not account for the presence of her son in the bar later on in the evening. Shb remembered something about Vuglar looking for a boarder named Waller and saying something about booking a bed, but she had served Vuglar as a guest of Corcoran’s.

James Corcoran stated that he; had been boarding .at the Commercial Hotel for about three months. He detailed how he had met Curtis and Vuglar earlier in the evening and later on invited them to the hotel. He corroborated Mrs Fathers’ e vidence as to the supplying of the drinks, for which he had paid. To Mr Maclean witness said that he did not know to whom the) other drinks belonged. Although Vuglar had a drink at his expense, he did not know whether he was a boarder or not, as he could easily book in without witness knowing. To Mr Porritt witness said that the three drinks had been brought into the commercial room by Mrs Fathers. Arthur W. Curtis, labourer, Paeroa, said that he knew Corcoran well. He and Vuglar, pt Corcoran’s invitation, went to the Commercial Hotel. Before leaving Corcoran invited them to have a drink, and went away to see if he could get them. The drinks were served by Mrs Fathers. When the police came in Vuglar said that he was a boarder, but he had said that he was a guest of Corcoran’s. Mr Carden explained that Vuglar had admittted making a false statement. The facts in the case were similar.

In answer to Mr Porritt the magistrate said he did not wish to hear evidence in favour of the licensee or the conduct of the hotel generally. He would consider th© points raised and authorities quoted by Mr Porritt and give a decision later.