MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 17 January 1918, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LEVIN -THURSDAY

The bi-monthly sitting of tlie Magistrates' Court was held in Levin to-day, Mr G. W. K. Kenrick, S.M., presiding. CIVIL CASES. Judgement was given by default for plaintiff in the case, H-. 11. Tolly and Son v. M. Siegel, claim £41 10s lOd, costs £2 14s.

In the judgement summons case W. S. Park v. W. Woolven, claim £8 Gs 6d, an order was made for the payment of the amount forthwith, in default, seven

lays' imprisonment, the warrant' o be suspended till January 25.

STRAYING CATTLE. The County Ranger proceeded against several defendants for allowing cattle and horses to stray at nights on the roads. Eines were ■ inflicted as follows:- —W. Langsliear (2 charges) £2 and 18s 4d costs; R- Cant (2 charges) £2 and 18s 4d costs; J. A. Schwass, 20s and lis 4d costs. BREACH OE LICENCING LAW

J. W. Davis, licensee of the Man'akau Hotel, was charged with on January 9 allowing the billiard room of the hotel to remain open at an hour at which it was ordered to be closed, and pleaded guilty. Constable Bagrie stated that about 8.30 on the evening in question, Constable Greggan visited the hotel. He found the billiard room open and five men in the room. When told he was committing an offence the licensee said he would at once close the room. There was no drinking

going on or anything wrong, and the licensee might have been under the impression that the billiard room was detached from the hotel because the door leading to the hotel was kept locked. The Magistrate said even the yard of -a hotel was "licensed premises," and he had to insist on yards of country hotels being fenced so that they could be defined.

Defendant said the billiard room was sft 6ins from the hiotel on one side and 3ft 4ins on another, and was entered from an adjoining barber's shop. If he had thought the room was on licensed premises he would not liave opened it. After inspecting a sketch of the premises His Worship said the room was undoubtedly on licensed premises,' and if it was desired to use' it, it must be completely fenced off and no communication made with the hotel.

Constable Bagrie said there was no ■ complaint about the way defendant conducted his premises' and the case was brought as a warning to licensees. His Worship 'said that under the circumstances lie would only inflict a fine of 10s with 12s costs. Rangi Ransfield, Ben {King, Wm. Nees, G. Gray, and H- Mason pleaded guilty to being found in the billiard room during prohibited hours. _ The Magistrate said the defendants were there in good faith believing they were acting lawfully and he suggested withdrawing the cases. . .-.iin Constable Bagrie said he had been instructed to prosecute and could not very well withdraw the informations. Personally he sympathised with the defendants, who quite believed they were within their rights. The S.M. convicted and discharged them stating it was not a case where a fine should be inflicted. ALLEGED SUPPLYING NATIVE WOMEN.

M. J- Sulian, licensee of tlie | Levin Hotel, was charged on two informations with supplying native women with liquor. There was also a similar charge against Herbert Aitken, barman at the hotel. Constable Bagrie conducted _me case and Mr McGratli, of "Welling, ton, appeared for defendant. Constable Bagrie said he ha.di been unable to get the summons served on the barman and would have to ask for an adjournment, which might have to go on indefinitely. The man had left the licensee's employ, and had no fixed place of abode. He hiad be® ll traced as far as Napier and Palmerston and he was now said to have gone to Auckland, where the summons had been sent. It would probably be necessary to ask for an ladjournment till next Court i day at least. . Mr McGratli that m regard to tlie cas& 3-ga.inst tb.6 licensee, if the constable's evidence did not establish Mr Suhan's responsibility, the case be dismissed without prejudice, so that it could be brought again when the barman was found. Discussion took place between the Magistrate and Counsel as to the licensee's responsibility. Mr McGratli said he was prepared to show that Mr Suhan was not present when the liquor was supplied, and knew nothing about it,'while it was contrary to his definite instructions to his barman. Counsel contended that under the section of the Act which said "supplying" and not selling , the licensee in such circumstances could hardly be held responsible, otherwise it would be impossible to carry on business. A barman under notice or with a grudge against his employer might, say to a Maori woman "come and have a drink and we'll land the boss in a £50 fine." The Magistrate said he was not prepared io say that. There were many cases where convictions lvad been entered when the ! knew nothiii; ah tut h'* .-ervants

actions. . MrMcGrnli. ntfJ i< case where the Hceus'-o went away and delegated his authority •<> a Da*" man, who became Ik; licensees "liter esro." Then tin* licensee had to take th, responsibility for

that person's acts, but not, he sub- | mitted, where the licensee, as in j this case, was actually on the pre. mises. After further argument it was agreed to hear the evidence and then decide upon the point of adjournment. Constable Bagrie stated that on December 22 at 11-15 a.m. 'he visited the Levin Hotel. He found two Maori women in a side room. One had a glass half-ful of beer in her hand, and wias drinking it. The other woman was sitting alongside of a desk with a full glass of beer in front of her. Herbert Aitken, barman at the Hotel, was standing in the room talking to the women. Witness took the beer from one of the women and asked the barman who supplied the beer . He replied: "I did." Witness asked if Mr Sulian was about and he said yes, and the licensee was brought. Mr Sulian said he knew nothing about the matter, and picked up the two glasses, and in answer to witness said he was satisfied it was beer. The women told him they were full-bloded Maoris and not married to Europeans anil this was confirmed by their appearance. To Mr McGrath : When witness first went into the room there was no Maori man present and be had no recollection of one coming in subsequently. Mr Sulian may have said, "It looks like shandy" referring to the liquor in the glasses.

Counsel: Did you taste it ? Witness; No, but I will swear ;here was beer in it.

Replying to further questions witness said that by appearance and smell he could distinguish hop beer and lemonade from ordinary beer and _ lemonade. Counsel expressed his doubt of anyone's ability to do so. M. J. Suhan, defendant, said Aitken was employed by him as barman on Dec. 22. Witness was not away from the premises on that day and when the constable sent for him he was in his cordial factory about a chain from the hotel. When he reached the hotel he found the constable, two Maori women and a Maori man, who was sitting on the sofa- Witness told the constable he hiad given instructions -to all his barmen not to supply native women. The barman had only been in witness's employ for six weeks, and came from Dannevirke, where the two native women also came from and he knew them. The constable asked witness what m the glass and witness said "It looks like shandy." 'Witness's opinion was that one could easily be misled as to whether it was shandy or beer, especially wh.en | it was flat. Mr McGrath : Do you think any average man : —I mean to say any man outside the police force—could distinguish between hop beer and alcholic beer, for instance. Witness: No, I don't think so. Constable Bagrie to witness : Do you contradict me when * I say there was beer in the glasses. Witness: No, I cannot do that. In answer to counsel witness said he could not say what was m the glasses. , At this stage the case was adjourned to this afternoon to enable the other cases on the points raised to be consulted. On resuming Mr McGrath asked that the case be dismissed on the evidence. _ n 7 , His Worship said he would adjourn it for a month to give an opportunity of locating Aitken and obtaining his evidence.