BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 901, 6 October 1910, Page 3

BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

FOUND ON LICENSED PREMISES. FOUR CONVICTIONS. TWO CASES DISMISSED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., six charges against separate persons of being unlawfully found on licensed premises when such places are required by law to be closed were heard. In one case the accused did not appear, but all the others were present and entered pleas of not guilty and were defended by Mr Cooper, of Palmerston North. Sergeant Willis of Palmerston North, conducted the cases on behalf of the police. The first case called was that against Patrick Murphy, who did not appear. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Sergeant Willis, who stated that on Sunday, August 28th, he saw defendant enter the Family Hotel at 7,45 a.m. He remained in the hotel until 11 o’clock when he came out with a bottle of beer in his pocket. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable Woods, who also stated that on being served with the summons accused said he would plead guilty. The Magistrate entered up a conviction and fined accused 10s with cost 12s. WENT IN FOR BREAKFAST. In the case against John Kinley Mr Cooper admitted that accused was on the premises, but submitted he was there for a legitimate purpose—to have breakfast. In proof of this statement he called the accused John Kinley, flaxcutter, Moutoa, who stated that he was in Foxton on Saturday, August 27th, and that night slept in Johnston’s stables. He had intended to stay at the Family Hotel, but Mr Munro had told him he could not have a bed. He went to the hotel on the Sunday morning for breakfast. He went in at about 8.45 o’clock, and remained there about 25 to 30 minutes. He left immediately after breakfast. Cross-examined by Sergeant Willis, witness said he left the stables for his camp on the Sunday morning between 9.30 and 9.45 o’clock. He had some drink before leaving. He admitted that he was not sober on the Saturday night.

To Mr Cooper; He had some beer in the stable, so that there was no reason for him to go into the hotel for liquor. To Sergeant Willis: Witness said he saw Constable Woods on Saturday night. Heard that he (Woods) took a bottle of beer from him. Someone relieved him of it. He was fairly drunk at the time.

May Hall, waitress at the Family Hotel, gave evidence to the effect that on the Sunday in question Kiuley had breakfast at the hotel. He came in some time after half-past eight. For the Police, evidence was given by Sergeant Willis to the effect that he saw defendant enter the hotel at S o’clock in the morning, and he remained there till half-past nine. When he came out of the hotel he went to Johnston’s stables, where he remained drinking with some other men until half-past ten. Constable Woods corroborated the previous witness’ evidence and stated also that on the Saturday night he saw Kiuley at about xo. 45 o’clock, when he was very drunk, and pleaded for another chance. Witness took a bottle of beer away from him. The Magistrate said that on the evidence he must accept that of the police. Kinley was certainly entitled to get breakfast at the hotel, but he was not entitled to stay on the premises longer than the time actually necessary to have the meal. An hour and a half was altogether too long. He would be convicted and fined 20s with costs 12s.

A CONTRACTOR AND HIS IvMPLOVIiK. Hugh Kiuley, brother of the defendant in the previous case, was also charged with a similar offence. For the prosecution Sergeant Willis, on oath, stated that he saw defendant enter the Family Hotel at S o’clock on the morning in question. He remained in the hotel exactly an hour coming out in company with a man named Frank Coyle by the same door as he entered. He then went to Johnston’s stables and remained there until half past ten. Constable Woods corroborated Sergeant Willis’ evidence. . He stated that on being served with the summons Kiuley said that he was staying at the Post Office Hotel at the time and went to the Family Hotel to see Coyle, who was a boarder, about resuming work. For the defence Mr Cooper called the defendant, who said that Coyle and his brother John worked for him, cutting and tramming flax. On the Sunday morning in question he had entered the Family Hotel for the express purpose of getting his brother and Coyle to go out to work. He could not swear as to the time at which he entered the hotel. When he went in he met the licensee, Mr Munro, who objected to him being there, and on witness giving his reasons for coming in, Mr Munro had told him to see Coyle and get out as soon as he could. He saw Coyle and his brother, who were just going into breakfast. He waited in the passage until they had had breakfast and when they came out he immediately left the hotel. He went out one door and his brother and Coyle out of the other. He could

not swear which door he came out by. Cross - examined by Sergeant Willis witness said he would swear he did not leave the hotel in company with Coyle. H. S. Munro, licensee of the Family Hotel, staled that when he saw defendant in the hotel on the Sunday morning he objected to his being there. Defendant said he came in to get his brother and Coyle to go out to work and witness told him to see Coyle and get out as soon as he could. It was about 8.30 o’clock. The Magistrate said he was not satisfied that defendant was in the hotel tor purposes other than a breach of the Act. He was not satisfied he was there for an innocent purpose and he would be convicted and fined 20s with costs 7s. TWO CHARGES DISMISSED. The charges against H. Stunnell and James Harper were dismissed, the Magistrate saying he was satisfied with the defendants’ explanations as to the reasons of their being on the premises. WENT IN TO COELECT ACCOUNTS. In the case against George Wright, Sergeant Willis stated that he saw defendant come across the street and enter the hotel yard by the back yard gate at 11.15 a m. He came out again the same way at 11.40 o’clock, and went towards the river. Constable Woods gave corroborative evidence. He said that on interviewing defendant as to his reasons for being on the premises he said : “It’s nothing to do with you, I wasn’t there.” For the defence, George Wright said he went into the hotel yard for the purpose of seeing some men who were staying at the hotel, who owed him money and had promised to pay on the Saturday night. They did not turn up as promised and he thought it advisable to look them up hence his reason for going into the yard. As he entered the yard witness said he saw a hoarder named Clark and told him who he was looking for and asked him to go into the hotel and see if they were there. He waited until Clark returned and after conversing with him for some little time went out and then walked on down to the river. James Clark corroborated defendant’s evidence as to asking him to go into the hotel and see if certain men were there. The Magistrate said he was not satisfied with defendant’s explanation as to his reason for being on the premises and convicted and fined him 20s with costs 7s.