ALLEGED BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1103, 31 May 1913, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Percy Lumsden,

licensee of the Manawatu Hotel, was charged, on the information, of the police, that be did, during the time at which the licensed premises are required to be closed, expose liquor for sale in such pre-

mises. Herbert Brown;CharlesAnderson, Frederick; Walls and Allen Harper were also charged With being found on licettsCid mises when such premises are required by law to be closed, not being servants or a boarders. Sub-Inspector Marsack cou-

ducted the case on behalf of. the police, and Mr Cooper appeared ' for all the defendants. The facts ri in all cases being the same, were heard together. Pleas: pf - not guilty were entered in all cases except that against Anderson, in which a plea of guilty was en-, tered, ;

The Sub-inspector briefly , outlined the case, and then called . Constable Sweeney, who stated • that on Sunday, April 27th, at about 8 p.m., he was passing the, Manawatu Hotel, and noticed two, ; persons coming out . of ,the gate . , leading from the, yard of the hotel. He stood and looked at them a moment, and then heard ; some talk in the yard. A remark was passed' concerning himself; ~ and he went Into the yard and . , saw six or eight persons lined up j by the back door. It was fair ly dark at the time. A man named r Allen Harper was knocking at the - door. Witness said, “Are all you men staying here?” They apparently recognised who witness r was, and decamped, with the' 'ex-‘ . ception of Harper. The daor was unlocked and opened by the licensee, Mr Lumsden, and Harper was admitted. Witness followed him in and asked him his business there. He replied, : “I came in to see a chap.” , , Harper worked in the swamp, and when in Foxton stayed either - with bis father, in Union or at the Family Hotel. Witness... >■ asked HarperthemauTie came in . to see. and he said it was Connolly, f Witness asked Lumsden it Con?. . • nolly was staying at the hotels and he said no, and he then told Harper to leave, which he did. t... Witness was in the passage.apd saw the front portion of the Hotel ;■ well lit np. He walked op the passage and found the side -door of the bar open, through which he : . could see the contents of the bar. The slide was right np, and the bottom part was also slightly open. The bar was lighted up by a candle in the centre, and another - at the end near the slide. Near ;, the bar he saw Frederick Walls, a resident of Foxton, who lived ' with his mother in Coley Street,. about 400 yards distant from the hotel. He was on the bottom step of the stairs, and' ..had a mng containing beer between' his legs. Witness said, “Are you - staying here, Walls?” and he :replied, “Yes, I'm staying here.” In reply to another question, Walls said that he did not' stay, , there the previous night, but bad engaged a bed for that night , Seated alongside Walls was a man named Charles Henderson, who ; was a married man, tesidingia Foxton. Witness' asked him what be was doing, theta, but . he did'not re£ly, ■ asked him if he and he said he Hethea told him to he did. so. -.. A man named Brbwn was sitting on a small table near the , staiiQ. - He had a mug with beer in it alongside him. Brown resides with his mother, theirhdnse being situated across the 'street from , t!bp - hotel,'a distance In reply to questions by ,wttnesffit f. Brown said that be was staying ini - the hotel that night,, but <that be>. did not stay there the previous v night. Lumsden then said that % Brown and Walls came in about seven o’clock and engaged bedsi t Witness then said, “Very well/, ' ; I'll examine your ledger.” Lumsded said, “We’ll, I didn’t 'enter-- ■ their names, but you can look at it if you like.” Lumsden ad* , mitted to witness that he served , the men with the beer,, and also that his reason for serving them with beer was because they . were., > boarders, having engaged beds for • the night. All the men were ; sober with the * excep ofc -■■■; Harper, and he was not drunk enough to lock up. To Mr Cooper:'He knew a '• man named Bright, but did _not see him the night: in; question. Harper was at the door when . witness came along. Witness was > at the door not more than half a, ' minute before it was opened. , Harper did not call out to anyone - inside. There was some singing going on upstairs at 5 the lime. When the door was opened witness .. did not hear Harper say anything;* . Connolly was staying at . tbu • .1, Family Hotel at the time. Th® ■ bar slide opposite the stairs was open, and witness could see -sir barrel of beer, and also somu- > bottled beer and glasses. They were slightly to the right of Jh®;., slide. The barman and a man named Wickham were not present • at the time. Went up to the slide, but did not push it open. Lumsden did not say that the names were not in the - be" 1 cause he made it a. practice? to i • enter up theT book .jiist pjior/ to£ 1 . going to bed. He did riot 'ten ' * ■ witness that the. men combined had paid for their not know a mat) named .Fairbnrn, v In addition to the men .he, had, named, there was another man present, a stranger to himV whom Lumsden said was a boarder. .. To Sub-Inspector Marsack: He - was satisfied there weretto others . present but the men he b*^,:.

' named, if anyone else said there f were, they would be saying some- \ thing that was not correct; ji This : closed the case for the | prosecution and Mr Cooper after j outlining the defence called Percy /;■ jLritrisden,' “the defendant, who l .stated that on the evening in question Brown and Walls came into the hotel about 5.30 o’clock, and jaskfed if they could, get tea there. (Witness said they could and they Isaid they worild be back later. iThey came back later and bad tea. iFairburri also .had tea there that ! night;- alsoßrigtit. The latter was a friend of the family and was witness’ guest. Witness was in the passaged'when Brown, Walls and Fairburn name out from tea. Walls came up to him and", said : "Can we get two beds to-night.’ Witness said they could apd Walls then paid him for them 3?. WituessjS&d he usually entered' all the names in the book just prior to retiring for the night. • After paying for the beds Walls, together with' Brown and Faitbilrn, went out. They came back at about 8 o’clock'and Faitbiirn ordered three j; drinks and paid for-them. Wit- * ness served them to Fairburn on a tray. When Sweeney came in witness was sitting on a chair . smoking,' near the slide. The four men 1 previously referred to were also there and after Sweeney came in' witness saw Redgrave and Wickham at. the top of the stairsi • When witness, heard, the knock st the door he asked who Was there, but he couldn’t distinguish the answer. Witness then asked what was wanted and a reply came, “Its Allan Harper; I want Connolly.” He opened the door and saw Harper and Sweeney just behind him with his hand on his shoulder. Sweeney asked what Harper was doing there and also it Connolly was staying there. Sweeney then told Harper, to get away and he left. At the time the bar slide was shut both top ,4nd bottom. Sweeney was swearing a deliberate lie when he said the slide was open. Sweeney asked Anderson if he was a boarder and he- saisrio and he theh told him to-gt Tout and he went. He spoke to Brown and Walls and they both said they had • engaged beds for 1 the night. Sweeney asked witness'when they booked the beds I and he told him seven o’clock. He then said: “I demand to see the book.’;’- 5 - Witness replied, ‘’lts no good Seeing the book as I don’t • enter it’up until just before Igo to bed?’ .Witness entered up the book afterwards. Walls/ ;, and Brdwu ‘ both stayed at th 6 hotel that night. They occupied No. 14. Fairburn was also in the same room. To the police : He knew both Brown arid Walls fairly well and knew they lived in Foxton.- Did not strike? him as peculiar that they should ask for beds. He did not tell-fifes. In his evidence Sweeney- had told a deliberate lie w hen he said the slide was open. He thought his reason for telling the lie was to further his own interests fri the force. He thought Sweeney must have a down on him or hei'Would not tell a deliber- • ate lie. Witness .admitted that in July of last year he was convicted and fined for a breach of the Witness said he knew Andfersdn. He came ; on to the stairs While Sweeney was talking to him at the door. He denied having had a godd many conversations “with Bright in connection -f with the case. Bright was present I when Walls and Brown were ‘ hiving their tea, but was not. present when they booked the beds. Witness and the barman were present whe& the beds were booked. Had spoken to Walls and Brown about the case. Walls slept at the hotel that night. Would be very much surprised if Walls’ mother said that he, slept at her house on the night in question. She could not truthfully say no. Brown also slept at the hotel. He did not ask them for an explanation as to why they came there to sleep. He denied that they, stayed there iri ( pfder to help him get out of the urgent charge. . Ronald "Bright, grocer’s assistant,, stated that he was a friend of , the family- On the Sunday in question he had both dinner and tea at the hotel as a guest of Mr Lumsden. Walls and Brown both had tea 1 there same night. One i of them paid fqr the teas and witness heard him ask Miss Lumsden something about beds and she said they would have’to see her father. To the police: He knew that v both Walls and Brown lived in the b ■ town. that Brown’s v mother was going away and that was- why he had tea ;%t |he hotel that night.' , Albert John Fairburn, labourer, said at the time in question he was a boarder at the Manawatn Hotel. On the Sunday night referred to he went into-tea at the safrie time 1 as Walls and Brown. Saw Walls pay lor the teas and say something to Miss Lufrisden about beds and she told him “he would have, to see her father. When they came out of thfe dining room he saw Walls engage beds from Mr Lumsden also pay for them. They went oat of the hotel together and when they ' returned 1 later on witness shoutfei dr&ks. Lumsden served the drinks. : Witness was present when the constable came and he would that at that time the bat slide was closed. ' £0 the- police; Did not know W either 1 -Brown or Walls until that - night' They slept at the hotel occupying the same room as he did. Could" riot remember who in the room with him the IT nfcht previous or the night after. He wist now working at Pataka and dame into Foxtoa the previous night asd-stayed at the Manawatn V - Hot# Lumsden was paying his cxpenses loT 'coming in. Ihd _ not ask Walls or Brown vfcy they ' were staying at the hotel nor did he .., ; Brown lived close to ths

hotel. Remembered the constable coming in. Could not say if there was a light in the bar. The top slide was down. When Lumsden got the drinks for them he went in under the slide.

Frederick Walls corroborated the previous witness’ evidence as to the engaging of beds for himself and Brown. When Sweeney came into the hotel the slide was shut both top and bottom. He slept at the hotel that night occupying number 14. To the police: Admitted having been previously convicted of being found on licensed premises. He usually slept either at his mother’s or his sister’s place. He couldn’t explain why he stayed at the hotel that night, but denied that it was a sudden resolution to do so after Sweeney came into the house. He had stayed there previously, but not for some time. It was no gain to him to stay there that night. They made up their minds to do so during the afternoon. Had no particular Reason for staying there. Had only one drink that night Did not see Lumsden get the drinks. Couldn’t say if he got them from the bar or not. He didn’t go under the slide. Saw the barman sitting on the stairs at the top landing. Denied having spoken to Lumsden about the case. < Horace Brown gave evidence of a similar nature to Walls’ in connection with the booking of the beds. He said he had tea at the hotel because his mother told him there would be no meals cooked for him that day. Stayed at the hotel that night because he had had a few words with his mother. Made up his mind to stqy there when he was having tea. Fairburn shouted the drinks. Did not know who served them. When Sweeney was there the bar slide was shut both top and bottom. He slept at the hotel that night. To the’ police : His house was about 50 yards from the hotel. Had no meals at home that day except breakfast. Had slept at the Manawatu Hotel on previous occasions. Fairbnrn brought his him, but didn’t see where he brought it from. He did not see the - bar slide open at all.

William Redgrave, barman at the Manawatu Hotel, stated that he was with the boss when the beds were engaged and paid for. When Sweeney came in he and Wickham were talking at the top of the stairs, from where he could see the bar door. Would swear absolutely that it was shut. To the police: Anderson came through the door from the fire escape and passed them afterwards sitting down on the stairs. Richard Wickham corroborated the previous witness’ evidence. Charles Anderson said that on the night in question he was passing the Manawatu Hotel and heard some singing upstairs. He went up the fire escape and sat down inside the door for a while and afterwards went along and sat bn the stairs. Was only there a inmute or so before Sweeney came in. The bar slide was closed.

To the police : Lumsden asked him to attend the Court as a witness. Didn’t know Lumsden was going to pay him anything for being there. Constable Woods gave evidence as to serving the summons on Allan Harper, who had told him that he would plead guilty. He told witness that Lumsden had called him a police pimp and had accused . him of knocking at the door in order to let Sweeney in to catch him.

The Magistrate said that in the charges against Anderson and Harper, the defendants would each be fined 10s, with costs 7s. In the case against Lumsden the evid 2nce was strong that the men in question were bona fide boarders, although it was possible that this may have been an afterthought on their part, but on the evidence he could not look upon them other than as lodgers. In fairness to Constable Sweeney he added that it was .possible that his evidence was right and the evidence of all the others was wrong. It was a peculiar thing that the witnesses did not see Lumsden go into the bar to get the liquor that it was admitted was served. The probability was that they did not notice it and, of course, it was also possible that (bey would not notice whether the slide was open or closed. He didn’t want it to go abroad that Sweeney was telling a lie, because he didn’t think that he was and it was only fair to the constable that he should make this clear. According to the evidence the men were lodgers and were entitled to get the drink and consequently the charges against Lumsden, Walls and Brown would be dismissed.