“AFTER THE BALL.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2139, 12 June 1920, Page 4

“AFTER THE BALL.”

CHAMPAGNE AT NELSON,

ALLEGATIONS OF THEFT

ROYAL VISIT INCIDENT,

At a meeting of the Nelson Ball Committee last week some discussion ensued regarding; (he champagne and claret which, it is alleged, was taken from the supper room. Mr E. Allan said a great deal of controversy was going on about “this champagne.” He- would like to get to the bottom of it. The Mayor, Mr AY AY Snodgrass : We did. Thai’s the trouble. Mr Allan said that the police were investigating the matter of a number of missing articles, and then it was stated that the committee had decided to stop proceedings. AVho, lie asked, were the members of the committee who decided this course?

The Mayor: As a matter of fact, Air Allan has very capably expressed it when he said we had got to the bottom of the champagne. Some of my friends who went in to the second supper were told that-the champagne was done. I presume Mr Allan’s statement is correct, and that we -finished it all up at the supper.

Mr C. Hamilton stated that when he left the supper room at 3.45 a.m. there was a ease of champagne, a ease of elaret, and a few odd bottles of wine left. He was not aware that anyone asked for champagne at the second supper; hut there was a ease of it in the room., Colonel Hume said he understoodthere was to be no champagne except for the Prince and his staff. He wished to know how much was consumed, and. who had it. He did not raise the f|uestion fojj the purpose of making trouble, but the “man in the street”—and lie was with him to a certain extent —considered there should have been champagne for everybody or nobody. He went in to the first supper with one of the staff, and there was no champagne on the table. On the other hand, at another table at. which, a dozen people were sitting there was plenty of champagne. Was it becauseithey asked for it, or were these special few particularly favoured? He considered if champagne was doled out it should have been doled out to everyone. Everybody paid for it, and should have had it if they wanted it. Mr C. R. Fell said lie understood the instructions were that the Prince’s table should have champagne, and others champagne cup. It was purely a mistake that champagne went to one particular table, because it was asked for, and no

one else, beyond the staff, obtained it. Champagne was hot available for everybody, champagne cup was.

In the course of further discussion it was consideredethat the instructions to stop police proceedings had been given under a misapprehension. It was resolved that it be an instruction to the police to reopen the matter and endeavour to trace the missing articles. It was stated that among the articles missing, in addition to the champagne and claret, were several tablecloths, four tablespoons, 13 dessert spoons, nine teaspoons, three dozen cups and saucers, plates and tumblers. Of the latter articles it was fair to consider that a number bad been broken.