LICENSING CASES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 807, 3 February 1910, Page 3

LICENSING CASES.

CHARGES AGAINST LICENSEES DISMISSED.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., Frederick Hadfield, licensee of the Manawatu Hotel, was charged on the information of the police with (i) on Sunday, January 2nd, did sell intoxicating liquor to wit beer, (2) did expose liquor for sale on such premises, and (3) did keep such premises open for the sale of liquor. The three charegs were taken together. Sub-Inspector O’Douovan conducted the cases on behalf of the police, and Mr Cooper appeared for defendant who pleaded not guiliy. For the prosecution the SubInspector called George Gupwell, flaxmill hand, who stated that on Sunday, January 2nd, he saw a butcher pull up at the Manawatu Hotel, and went over to see him about some meat for his wile’s boardinghouse. After speaking to the butcher he saw a man named Joe standing at the front door of the Manawatu Hotel, and asked him about the previous day s racing at Bulls. After conversing with Joe for some little time they went in Lie hotel together. Witness asked Joe if a man named Ray, who was slaying at the hotel, was up and Joe said no. On going into the hotel, witness saw Ray coming down the stairs and asked him if he was going out to the mill that day. Kay said that he would not be able to go out until the Monday. While witness was talking to Rae, Howard, the barman, came out of the bar with a bucket and afterwards returned again. Shortly afterwards Howard said to witness “What’s your drink,” and he replied a beer. Joe had a whisky. Did not know whether the barman or Joe was shouting. No one paid for the liquor. When witness and Joe entered the hotel the bar was closed up. The liquor was handed through the bottom door. Had just received the liquor when the police entered. While the police were present another man named Wilson came into the hotel but had no drink.

To Mr Cooper : Joe comes into Foxtou almost every week-end and stays at the Manawatn Hotel. When the police arrived Constable Woods asked who paid for the drinks and witness answered noone, The constable then asked who supplied them and witness said ‘•Bob did,” meaning the barman. Drning the conversation Howard was in the bar and may have heard what passed. If Joe said that he shouted witness would not deny it.

Constable Woods said that on Sunday, January 2nd, be visited the Manawatn Hotel in company with Constable Sweeney, at about eight o’clock in the morning. Found Joe, Gupwell and a man named Croft standing alongside the bar slide. They each had a glass of liquor in their hands. Howard was in a crouching position under the slide. Asked Gupwell what he was doing there, and he replied : “I’m caught alright; I’ll plead guilty.’’ Asked him who supplied the drinks, and he said Boh. Asked who paid for them, and he said “ I don’t know ; uo-one’s paid for them.” Asked who ordered them, and he said Howard saw him in the passage with Joe and Croft and asked them what they were going to have to drink. Asked Howard what he meant by supplying Gupwell with liquor, and he said “ I shouted the drinks lor them, and nobody paid for them.’’ Asked him if the licensee told him to shout for them, and he said no. Witness then went upstairs to see the licensee, and found him in bed. Asked him if he instructed the barman to sell drinks or shout, and he said no, that he gave him the keys to clean out the bar, and instructed him not to open the bar on any consideration whatever. Told him what had occurred downstairs, and he said “that’s what a. man gets fur giving the keys to his men to clean up,” and added that he had no knowledge whatever of what was going on. Witness said that he was quite satisfied that Joe and Croft were boarders, but the others were not. The bar could not be seen from, the street. To Mr Cooper: Could not see the liquor in the bar unless stooping. Was positive that Croft was present. He look his drink upstairs. Constable Sweeney corroborated the previous witness’ evidence as to entering the hotel and finding the men with glasses of liquor in their hands. Witness staled that Constable Woods asked Gupwell where he got the beer, and he replied that he had it given to him. Constable Woods then ordered him to leave the premises. At this fime Wilson entered the hotel, and Constable Woods also told him to leave. The barman said that he was only supplying boarders, and when asked about Gupwell, said ; “ I gave it to him and received no payment.” In reply to Mr Cooper, witness said that he did not remember the word “shouted” being used at all.

This closed the case for the pro secution.

Mr Cooper submitted there was no case to answer. In reference to the first charge, that of keeping the premises open, there was no evidence whatever in support of this, as the only door that was open was the private entrance, which was always kept open on Sundays, aud the bar conic "ot be seen from the street. The second charge, that of exposure lor sale, be contended there was no exposure as the bottom door of the bar was only opened ou two or three occasions, and the liquor in the bar could not be seeu through this unless one stooped and looked

I through. As to the sale of liquor, I there was no evidence of an illegal i sale, the evidence showing that the I liquor was given away.

The Magistrate said there was certainly no evidence that the premises were kept open for the sale of liquor, and that charge must fail. In re'erence to the other two charges he would first hear the defence.

At this stage Gupwell was recalled, and asked if Croft was present when the liquor was served, and he said that lie did not see him.

For the defence Mr Cooper called James Joe, of Moutoa, who said that he usually lived at the mill, but always stayed at the Manawatu Hotel when in Foxtou. He stayed at the Manawatu Hotel for a fortnight at Christmas and New Year time. On Sunday, January 2nd, he remembered the police coming in when he was having a drink. Gupwell was present, but Croft was not there. Knew Croft was staying at the hotel, but did not see him that morning. He met Gupwell at the front door of the hotel at about five past eight. Had a conversation with him about the Bulls races, and afterwards invited him to have a drink. The bar was closed up, but witness knocked at the slide, and called for two drinks, which were supplied by Howard. Did not know that Howard was in the bar, but knocked to find out. Howard onened the bottom door, and witness asked for a beer and a whisky and lime juice and soda. No money passed, but witness was responsible for payment. It was not a “shout” by the barman. Witness paid for the drinks on January 22nd. To the Sub-Inspector : —Did not know the case was on until the day previous. When he paid Mr Hadfield for the drinks he did not know anything about the case, and Mr Hadfield did not mention it. Mr Hadfield came cut to Moutoa the day before and told him about the case. Did not hear any conversations between the police and Gupwell as witness went upstairs to his room when the police arrived. To the Bench ; Did not see Howard come out of the bar with a bucket.

Robert Howard, at present employed as barman at the Manawatn Hotel, said that on Sunday, January 2nd, he went to the Hotel at about 7 a.m. to clean up the bar. Went to Mr Had field and got the keys. His general instructions were that he was to serve no one on Sundays except; boarders. Reft the bar once to get a bucket of water. After witness had been in the bar for some time he heard a knock on the slue, and asked who was there. The reply was “ It’s me.” Recognised the voice as Joe’s. Joe said he wanted two drinks, and witness opened the bottom door and asked what the drinks were. One asked for a beer and Joe for a whisky. Handed the drinks to Joe. Supplied two drinks only, not three. Did not see Croft. Did not see Gupwell until the police came in. Heard Constable Woods ask Gupwell what lie was doing there, and witness then stepped back into the bar and did not hear any further conversation. Constable W oods afterwards came into the bar and asked who shouted. Witness replied ; “Joe called for the drinks.’’ The constable then asked who paid for them, and witness told him no-one paid for them. Witness said that he did not tell Constable Woods that he shouted.

The Magistrate said that he would take time to consider the evidence before him and would give his decision at 2 o’clock.

At two o’clock the Magistrate said he had gone fully into the case and found that it must be dismissed. At the same time he added that the police were quite right in bringing the cases forward as the barman's statements to them were such that they could not do otherwise. He was of opinion that the shouting was done by Joe and he had previously held that a boarder may treat his friends on a Sunday. The case would therefore be dismissed.

Henry S. Munro, licensee of the Family Hotel, was charged by the police with (1) keeping his premises open on Sunday for the sale of liquor, and (2) with selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday, to wit one bottle of beer.

Mr Cooper appeared for defendant who pleaded not guilty. For the prosecution the SubInspector called Patrick JUenihau, rope and twine worker, of Foxton, who said that on Sunday, December 26th, he went into the lavatory at the back of the Family Hotel. He did not go into the hotel at all. On coming out of the lavatory he met the policelie had a bottle of beer in his possession which he had brought from home. The bottle was one of three he purchased at the Family Hotel on Christmas Five. On Sunday had told a friend of bis named Madden that he would come down to his house on the Sunday alternoon and would bring a bottle of beer with him. On going to Madden’s house in the

alternoon he found that he was not at home and witness decided to go on to the river bank to see if he was there. On the way to the river bank he went into the lavatorv at the back of the Family Hotel.' Constable Woods staled that on December 26th at about 3.30 p.m. in company with Constable Sweeney, he went behind a foulhouse at the rear of the Family Hotel and was watching same Irom t'rere, which was about 28 to 30 ya.ds away from the hotel. He saw Tenihau come out of the side entrant.* of the hotel with a bottle iu his right hand. Ou coming out

of the door Lenihan placed the beer under his coat. Witness approached him and took the bottle which contained beer. Afterwards went into the hotel and knocked at the bar slide. It was immediately opened by the licensee, who was behind the bar with his coat off and his sleeves rolled up. Produced the bottle of beer and asked if he sold it to Lenihan. Me said no. Asked it Lenihan was on the premises and he said not to his knowledge. Told him he would hear more about it. Several boarders were in the bar parlour, more or less under the influence of liquor. Visited the hotel six times during the day and each time found the licensee behind the bar.

To Mr Cooper : The side and front doors were both open. Constable Sweeney said that on Sunday, December 26th, he visited the Family Hotel at 12 noon and saw four men (three of whom were not boarders) coming out of the side entrance. Went into the hotel and saw four empty glasses on a small table in a corner of the passage. The bar was closed but the licensee was behind the counter. Asked him what the men that had just left were doing on the premises. He said he did not know and that he did not supply them with liquor, but admitted seeing two of them standing in the passage. Witness spoke to the licensee in regard to the loose manner in which he was conducting his business, and he (the licensee) said he would be more careful in future. At 3.30 p.m. witness again visited the hotel and saw Lenihan coming out of the side entrance. Approached him and took possession of a bottle of beer which he had under his coat.

To Mr Cooper; Inspected the hotel book in the morning and found that there were about 20 boarders staying at the hotel. When watching the hotel in the afternoon was concealed behind a bush at the back of the premises about fio or 70 yards away from the hotel.

For the defence Mr Cooper called Mrs Munro, who stated that she looked after the locking up of the hotel. On Sundays it was usual for the front door to be open but all others locked. On Christmas lsve witness said she locked the side door and kept the key in her possession all day Sunday. She did not unlock the door till evening' when she opened it to admit two boarders. When the police came in about Lenihau the side door was locked and the key was in her possession. The Magistrate said on the evidence before him Ire would have to dismiss the case.

PROCURING LIQUOR FOR PROHIBITED PERSON.

Charles Matson was charged with procuring liquor for a prohibited person on January 20th, Mr Cooper appeared for defendant who pleaded not guilty.

Constable Woods stated that on the night of January 20th at about 9.55 o’clock he saw George Wright standing in front of the Family Hotel. Witness and Constable Sweeney were standing alongside waiting for the hotel to close, when defendant, Matson, came out of the bar door with a glass of beer m his right hand. He offered it to Wright but he said “I’m not going to drink that, there’s the police here.” Matson said “Goon: drink it up.” Witness asked Matson if be knew Wright was a prohibited person, and he said “Yes.” He then again offered the liquor to Wright. Matson was partly under the influence of liquor at the time.

Defendant was convicted and fined 10s with costs 7s.

UNLAWFULLY FOUND ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Henry J. Prew charged with being found on the premises of the Family Hotel during the currency of a prohibition order did not appear.

Constable Sweeney said that 011 January 23rd at about 7.15 a.m. saw defendant go into the back yard of the Family Hotel. Followed him and saw him looking through one of the windows. Asked him what he was doing there and he replied that he was looking for his mate. Told him to go away.

The Magistrate inflicted a fine of los with costs 7s.