LICENSING CASES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2288, 11 June 1921, Page 3

LICENSING CASES.

BARMAN EXCEEDS lIIS AUTHORITY.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., J. H." Follas, licensee of the Post Office Hotel, was charged by the Police that, on May 11th, he kept his premises open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and that on the same date lie had liquor exposed for sale. ( ’ Mr Bergin appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty.

Inspector McKinnon conducted the prosecution on behalf of the police.

Constable Owen stated that at about 7.15 a.rn. on the 11th May he saw two men go info the back yard of the Post Office Hotel. He went round and found the back door open; On going inside he found the door of the bar parlour open, and the slide of the bar up. Four men were standing at the bar, and each had a glass containing liquor in their hands. Mr Hynes, the barman, was behind the bar. One of the men, Graham, was a hoarder, but the other three, James Kennedy, Arthur Childs, and Henry Parfait, were not. Kennedy stated that he had a bad head, and that lie had gone in to get a drink. Childs and Parfait had also gone around to get a drink. Childs was in a state of intoxication. The licensee was at that time in his room. Later he had interviewed the licensee, aiTd he had told him that Hynes had had no authority to serve drinks after hour’s.

John Thomas Follas, the licensee and defendant, stated that he did not know of.the matter until lie went down to open the bar at A o’clock. Hynes’ duties were to clean ouj the bar before nine o’clock, and lie had no authority whatever lo serve drinks before opening hours. The key was in his (defendant’s) possession, and lie opened (ho bar at A a.in., and closed it at 0 p.m. Hynes obtained the key from him in the mornings to clean out the bar, and returned ii when ho had finished. He had impressed upon Hynes never to sell liquor after hours. He had not discharged Hynes.

William Henry Hynes, barman, slated that he remembered serving the men in question. He had been employed by Mr Follas ever since lie had 1 taken over the premises. liis, work was to clean out the bar, with the assistance of the porter, each morning. He had no key to the bar, hut got the key each morning from Mr Follas, to whom he returned it when ho had finished his work. He had disobeyed Mr Follas’ orders. Mr Childs was an old friend of his, and lie did not like to refuse him. He was surprised Lo see the four men come in, but lie did not order them out.

Mr Bergin stated that Mr Hynes had assumed an authority he had no right to, and that no blame could be attached to the licensee. He submitted a decision of Mr Justice Simms bearing on the case given at Timnru.

The S.M., in view of the authority quoted, said he would give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case. He stated, however, that the liceusee was to a certain extent responsible, and that he Miould exercise a more careful supervision in future.

William Henry Hynes, barman, was charged that, not being the licensee of the hotel, he did sell liquor, contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Act. Accused pleaded guilty, and was convicted and fined £5, and 7s costs.

ILLEGALLY ON LICENSED PREMISES.

James Kennedy, Arthur Childs, and Henry Parfait, charged with being illegally on licensed premises, were each convicted and lined £2 and costs 7s.

Charles MeCarthey, charged that on the 29th May he was found illegally on the licensed premises of the Post Office Hotel, was convicted and lined £2 and costs 7s, Edward Boyle, Job Alexander Healey and Ronald Healey wero convicted and lined £2, with 7s costs, for being illegally on the licensed premises of the Family Hotel.