BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2621, 18 August 1923, Page 3

BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

UNLAWFULLY ON LICENSED PREMISES.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., H. F. Preston, licensee of the Post Office Hotel (Mr Bergin) was charged by the police with keeping his hotel open after hours on August 15th and with the sale of liquor and in connection with this charge Darcy George Robinson and Walter Edlin were charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises. Mr Bergin in outlining the ease, said that one of the men (Edlin) was employed by the local cordial factory and was in the habit of delivering cordials to the hotel. The licensee was a comparative stranger. On the night in question Edlin entered the hotel on the plea of fixing up an account and subsequently asked for' a drink, which was supplied to both men. Senior-Sergeant Fraser, on behalf of the prosecution, said that Constable Owen saw the two men enter the hotel and followed them in. He said both men were addicted to drink and were frequently seen at night with bottles of beer in their possession which indicated that liquor was being sold in Foxton after hours.

The S.M. convicted the licensee on' the second charge and imposed a fine of £5 and costs and dismissed the first information. Constable Owen, in evidence, stated that at about 7.40 p.m. on the 15th inst. he saw both men enter the hotel. Both men were in the bar and each had a long glass, half full of beer. Each accused were convicted and fined £2 each and costs 7/-. SELLING AFTER HOURS. Ethel Kirkland, an employee at Whyte’s Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor after hours to Clyde Pearce. A plea of not guilty was entered. Clyde Pearce, who was undefended pleaded guilty to being on licensed premises. Sergeant Fraser conducted the case on behalf of the police and Mr Hollings appeared for Miss Kirkland. Arising out of the same alleged transaction Walter Kirkland was charged with selling liquor after hours. Constable Owen stated that in company with Constable O’Donoghue, he saw Pearce come out of the main entrance “of the hotel at about 9 p.m." on the night in question. Accused had a bottle of beer in his possession which he said Miss Kirkland had sold him for 1/G. Took possession of beer. Witness interviewed Miss Kirkland, who admitted the sale and said the licensee was away and had given her the keys to the bar.

To Mi* Hollings: When asked if she sold Pearce a. bottle of beer she replied: “That’s right, Ido not know why I did it.” Whyte’s Hotel was well conducted and Mr Kirkland was a satisfactory licensee. Counsel then asked whether the Constable had given special attention to this hotel in order to get a conviction: “Isn’t it a fact that you watch all boarders very carefully and watched me when I was a boarder at the hotel?” The S.M.: That’s alright. You can take it that the constable is vei*y zealous in all his work. Your remarks have got nothing to do with the case. Constable O’Donoghue gave corroborative evidence to which Mr Hollings objected. The S.M.: It doesn’t matter whether you do object. Mr Hollings : I know what is evidence, Your Worship, and what is not. The S.M.: Yes, and I am quite capable of picking out evidence from non-evidence without help of counsel. Mr Hollings then pointed out that the licensee had given the keys to the bar to Miss Kirkland to take to the licensee’s wife. Miss Kirkland had taken the beer to Pearce upstairs. Clyde Pearce, in evidence, admitted purchasing the beer from Miss Kirkland. Mr Hollings argued that it was no offence under the section quoted to “supply” liquor; the offence lay in the sale. Miss Kirkland was entitled to have liquor if she was in the household and he then. quoted eases bearing on the point and which had been dismissed. In this case Miss Kirkland was. not charged with the sale of liquor, but merely with “supplying” liquor. The S.M.: Do you suggest that a sale is not to supply? Mr Hollings argued that if Miss Kirkland chose to supply the man with the liquor that she was entitled to as a member of the household there was no offence. The S.M.: She would be still liable under section 205 and there is no evidence before me to show that, the person supplied was a personal friend.

Mr Hollings: One’s guest is not always one’s personal friend. The S.M.: The point is: Was Pearce enttled to receive liquor?

Counsel said there was no evidence to prove that the bottle contained intoxicating liquor. The S.M.: Do you want me to taste it? (laughter). Mr Hollings contended that it was not proved that the bottle contained intoxicating liquor.

The bottle was then produced and the label read. The S.M.: The bottle is labelled as beer and been sold as beer. Beer is beer.

Mr Hollings: Yes, but it might contain any non-intoxicating liquor. The S.M. heatedly: Miss Kirkland said it was beer. For goodness sake don’t make such idiotic suggestions, you’re wasting the time of the court.

Counsel protested against the S.M.’s remarks.

Walter Kirkland, licensee, said this was the first complaint against him since he held a license. Miss Kirkland was his niece. He had forbidden the staff to sell liquor after hours. He had given the keys to Miss Kirkland to give to his wife as he was going away. Miss Kirkland had no authority to sell the liquor.

To Senior-Sergeant Fraser: Miss Kirkland was familiar with the bar.

Ethel Kirkland, in evidence stated that she had no authority to sell after hours and had been forbidden to do so by the licensee. When she saw Pearce in the hall she fold him to go upstairs and then got the beer and gave it to him. Sergeant Fraser: Why did you send him upstairs? Is that a trick of hotels? Accused: I don’t know. I was going upstairs for the keys and told him he had better come up too. Sergeant Fraser: Why had the license forbidden you to sell after hours?

Mr Hollings quickly answered the question and the S.M. objected that counsel was overstepping the mark in an endeavour to answer the question. As an experienced counsel he should know this.

Continuing, the accused said that the licensee had asked her to take the keys up to Mrs Kirkland but as Mi's Kirkland was engaged she put the keys in their usual place, in a drawer in Mi’s Kirkland’s bedroom, from which place she got them when she served Peasce. She told Pearce to go upstairs before she served him. She had never previously supplied anyone after hours. Mr Hollings said there was not sufficient evidence to convict, the licensee. It was quite probable that Pearce had purchased the liquor befor closing time anyhow. The S.M.: Miss Kirkland admits that she did not receive the keys until after hours. It was very improbable that a man would walk about all day with a bottle of beer in his pocket.. Mr Hollings again argued that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The S.M. said he was entitled to take reasonable inference from evidence submitted to the Court. An interjection from Counsel brought forth the remark from the S.M. to the etfect that it was unusual for counsel to attempt to deliver an address on evidence to the Bench, but counsel should confine himself to law court procedure. The S.M. said lie was quite satisfied that an offence had been committed under section 205. It was not a serious offence but seeing that counsel had expressed doubts throughout the proceedings he was prepared to make the fine a severe one in order to allow Counsel to appeal. Mr Hollings: I am quite satisfied to leave the matter to your Worship’s discretion. The S.M. dismissed the charge against. Walter Kirkland and imposed a fine of 10/- and costs against Ethel Kirkland, remarking that he was satisfied that the young woman had yielded to temptation and he hoped it would not occur again. Pearce would be convicted and fined £2 and costs 7/-. FURTHER CHARGES. George Mounsey (barman) and Walter Kirkland, licensee, were charged with supplying Phillip Eric Churcher, a person under the age of 21 years with liquor. Evidence as to the procuring of liquor was given and the birth certificate produced. Churcher admitted lie was under age and that no questions as to age were asked when lie was supplied with liquor. Mr Hollings said from appearances, Churcher was over age and apart from this was in business. The Magistrate admitted that Churcher was a healthy’ looking specimen for 20 years and his business address would no doubt give the impression that he was older than what he appeared. It was the duty of the police, however, to make full enquiry . He would give the aecuseds’ the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the cases.

11. D. Mclver (Mr Bergin) licensee of the Manawatu Hotel, was charged with employing his son, under the age of 21 years, in the bar. Mr Bergin stated that the licensee’s son was employed at the hotel as porter and was a member of the family and no one else was employed. Sergeant Fraser pointed out that it was the duty of the licensee to employ a man in the circumstances. The S.M. said no exception could be made in this case as the Act made the prohibition of such service absolute. A conviction was entered and a line of £1 and costs £1 9/- imposed.