ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5201, 9 November 1927, Page 2

ON LICENSED PREMISES.

A SCNBAT MOBNHMJ VISIT.

THREE YOUNG MEN FINED.

A the Paeroa Police Court on Monday, before-Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., W. Jenkinson, J. I. Ellis, and T. King, Paeroa, were charged with being found on licensed premises at Paeroa on October 30, when such premises were required to be closed. Sergeant D. L. Calwell conducted the prosecution, and Mr E. J. Clendon appeared for the defendants, who, pleaded not, guilty.

Constable McClinchy said that at 10 a.m. on October 30 hq visited the Royal Mail Hotel premises. In room 17, which was occupied by the barman, Jenkinson and Ellis were lying on a single bed in the room, fully clothed. On being questioned Ellis stated that he had slept there all night, and Jenkinson said hq had come in for some dinner. Witness saw the son of the licensee, who produced his bedroom book for examination. The names of the defendants did not appear, and Crosby stated that he had no knowledge of them b ing on the premises. In answer to Sergeant Calwell -witness said the room was down a back passage on the ground floor. Entrance could be gained from the back door. He saw King outside the .window of the room, which looked out on to Wharf Street. After standing near the window King went into the yard of the premises through a side gate, but was not inside the hotel, although after leaving the premises he saw King coming out on to the street through the side gate again. King stated that he had been called in to the yard by a man who wanted to borrow £2.

An examination of the bar disclosed the barman with two glasses in his hand and beer on the counter. A man named Quinnin, who was a boarder, obtained some liquor while he was there.

To Mr Clendon witness said that he had not seen King actually in the hotel, and did not, hear him talking to Quinnin. He denied that Ellis and Jenkinson had said they had takqn breakfast in "the hotel. Both men had had liquor, but he could not say if it had been obtained at. that hotel. Ellis had said that he bad had liquor the night bqfore. Crosby had no knowledge of the defendants being on the premises. Corroborative evidence was given by"' Constable Dawson.

Mr Clendon said that neither Ellis nor Jenkinson had been before the. Court before. They had been to a party the previous night, and walked a distance of three miles to Paeroa and called at the hotel for breakfast and a rest. Ellis had not stated to the police that he had slept on the premises. There was a misunderstanding on that point. As the defendants had had their breakfast in the hotel they were lawfully on the premises. It was a question whether they should have remained on thq premises after having had breakfast. It was worthy of note that they had been invited into the bedroom by Quinnin, who was a. boarder. Authorities wiere quoted by ■Mr Clendon in support of the; contention that the defendants were on the premises for a lawful purpose. Although on licensed premises the police had not proved that a breach of the Licensing Act had been committed.

W. Jenkinson said that he had gone to a party on the Saturday night and returned to Paeroa about 9 o’clock on the Sunday morning. He went tp the hotel with Ellis, and they had breakfast. Quinnin joined them at the table, and later invited them along to his room to have a rest. Defendant denied that he had told Constable McClinchy that he had gone into the hotel for dinner. He had not gone for liquor, and did not get any. To Sergeant Calwqll defendant said he knocked off work at 2 o’clock on Sunday morning and walked out to the party, where beer was consumed. He was just over 18 years of age, and lived about 200 yards from the hotel. He seldom frequented the bar of the hotel, but had had mep-ls there on previous occasions.

J. I. Ellis confirmed the evidence of the previous witness, with whom he had been since early on thei Sunday morning. They drank no liquor at the hotel, and did not go there for the purpose of obtaining liquor. He quite frequently had meals at thehotel.

To Sergqant Calwell defendant said he lived three-quarters of a mile from the hotel. He had known the barman all his life, and did not see him handling any liquor on the Sunday morning.

Tony King gave evidence that in accordance, with an arrangement made previously he had gone to the hotel yard to pay £2 to Quinnin. He did not enter the hotel itself, and had had no liquor. When the police came along he was nearly three chains from the premises.

To the Sergeant defendant said he knocked on Quinnin’s window, and he was asked by Quinnin not to pass the money in the street but to take H round to the back of the hotel, where Quinnin came and got it. The whole transaction took about three minutes. He had previously been convicted for being on licensed premises. W. Quinnin said he boarded at the Royal Mail Hotel. He saw’ Ellis and Jenkinson first at breakfast, and after hearing about the party and learning that they were tirdfl he invited them, along to his bedroom for a speill. No liquor was served. Witness detailed the borrowing of thq money, and stated that he had invited King to go into the yard. When the police came witness was in the bar getting a couple of drinks to take along to a room for himself and another boarder. In summing up, thei magistrate sLlff that the evidence given by the accused was not in keeping with statements made to the police, and to him was unsatisfactory. He would convict and fine the accused £2 and costs 10s.