ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2926, 22 August 1925, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

DECISION' RESERVED. The ease in which the police proceeded against Robert McAlullian, licensee of the Family Hotel, for supplying a Native with liquor, contrary to the Licensing Act, took up the greater portion of the time at yeserday’s S.M. Court. Constable Owen conducted the ease for the Eolito and .Mr l'ergin appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Roore Rangiheuea acted as interpreter.

Constable mven outlined die ease at some length and called Iluia Rangi, Iluia Rangi a local Native in evidence, stated through the interpreter, that at about ten minutes to six on Saturday evening, 25th •July, lie entered the main bar of the Family Hotel. There he met a man named Proctor. He asked MeMnllian,' through Proctor, if he could obtain live gallons of beer and. Proctor then suggested that he would get the liquor. Questioned lie stated that he first asked MeMnllian if he .could get the liquor hut the latter replied in the negative. Proctor then said he would get it. Proctor said that he would see that the jar was returned. Witness placed 25 - on the count or and left immediately. Tie expected to receive the liquor through Proctor and went down to the river bank. Subsequently lie took possession of the beer from Proctor.

Cross questioned, witness stated that he asked Proctor to gei the liquor before defendant refused to supply him. To Mr Bergin: He paid for the drinks that Proctor and lie had while in the bar. It was so dose to six o’clock that he did not see who took the money for the live gallons. I Laughter). Continuing, witness said that he met Proctor next morning at S o'clock at witness’s residence across the river. Proctor suggested that witness should say that he paid for tin* liquor as defendant was going to sav that he (Proctor) paid for it. Witness didn’t know what Proctor was getting at. Procter also suggested that witness see Constable Owen and say that lie bail paid for the beer The S.M'.: Did you pay for the liquor ? —I did.

Ilarry Proctor, in evidence stated that he was a labourer residing in Foxtoii; He met previous witness in the bar of McMullian’s hotel on the day in question, Mr and Mrs .MeMnllian being behind the bar. Iluia spoke lirsf and asked witness to have it drink. Iluia then asked .MeMnllian for five gallons of beer and defendant said he hadn’t got a .jar. Witness said that lie would sec that the jar was returned or if not returned he would pay for it. Haiti then asked witnc.-s to carry the demijohn down to the river bank which he agreed to do. Haiti then paid over a i‘l note and a 10/uoie to MeMnllian. Witness did not touch the money as it was paid into defendant's own hands. MeMnllian then went out and got the jar and lilled it with beer. Uuia by this lime had departed. Witness climbed over the liar and took the demijohn out the hack door. Witness was caught by the Police taking the liquor to the river hank, hut was allowed lo proceed. There he met Uuia who took the jar. Witness met the defendant the same evening when he said that he (witness) had paid for the beer. Witness called him a liar and McMullian then turned his hack and said no more.

Tu Mr. Berg-in: Huia was sober. Witness was not drunk. Did not know how long- it would take to till the demijohn. He had .just time to get out of the hotel before six o'clock. On Sunday morning he went over the river and asked Huia to speak the truth about the transaction as he understood it was a serious matter. Constable 'Owen rowed him across and left him tit ere.

Constable Hyatt, on oath, staled that at 5.55 p.lll. on the day in i[iies|ion he was on duty in Main St. with Constable Owen. He saw Huia leave the Family Hotel just on six o'clock. Later witness went round the side of the hotel and saw Proctor. Witness then proceeded to lite river bank, whore, from a concealed position, lie saw Proctor hand the demijohn to Huia. Constable Owen then took possession of the liquor. Shortly after McMullian was brought out ,t.o the front of the hotel where he identified the demijohn and accused Proctor uf paying for the beer. Proctor denied this several times and called defendant a liar.

To Mr. Bet-gin: Proctor had liad a good few drinks an was under llie influence of liquor. Nothing else had been said and McMullian turned away after saying to Proctor "you paid for tile beer but I’ll see you la tor.'" Constable Owen corroborated the evidence given by Constable Hyatt. Defendant said lie had sold the beer to Proctor and asked where he was then transacted the business indicated the hall bar.

To Mr. Bergiu witness said Proctor wanted to clear himself of a serious charge and so lie rowed him across the river. He then returned home for breakfast, after which he went back for him

Mr. Bergiu said that the onlyevidence against defendant as to the transaction was that of Huia and Proctor. Huia said that defendant refused to sell him liquor and that he made arrangements with Proctor and left the money. Proctor was an accomplice and his evidence required corroboration as to the actual sale, There were also

two interpretations to the ‘‘supply” as used in the Licensees. Amendment Act. The act of manual delivery had to he proved. MeMullian delivered to Proctor aud Proctor supplied Hnia. The S.M.: Isn’t that a reason why we should convict your client’? He supplied liquor to Proctor knowing that it was going to Huia. *3 Mr. Bergin: The law relates to the man who “supplies.” The S.M.: That is an absurd interpretation. The man who sells is the chief offender. According to your argument the publican gets paid and the carrier fined £SO. Mr. Bergin: That is so. The carriers must he stopped. The S.M'.: Then the accomplice gets fined and the principal gets off! Mr. Bergin: That's the man the legislation wants to get at. The S.M.: No! The publican’s the man. Your interpretation is too narrow. Air. Bergin quoted decisions on pnralcll ea»-es, the S.M. stating that he would make a note of one point raised. Air Bregin said that Iluia said he paid 25/- for the beer and Proctor said there were two notes handed over.

Constable Owen: He could have handed over a £1 note and a postal note for 5/-. ADv Bergin: That’s too narrow! Robert AleAlnllian was then called and in evidence stated that he had refused to give Huia liquor. Iluia then “shouted” Proctor and he look no more notice of the pair, as he was busy. When he came back again Proctor asked if he would sell him five gallons of beer. Witness replied in the affirmative but stated be bad no jar in the bar. lie brought a jar from the storeroom and filled it. The inonev was

on the counter in front of Proctor. Proctor had often taken beer away in bulk before. It would take ien minutes to fill the jar. The S.AI.: That doesn’t matter, except, that you might be convicted for trading after hours. To Constable Owen witness said that Iluia was not then present. The money on the counter was a fi note and a postal note for 5/-. 11c was not in the habit of allowing i-ustomers to climb over the bar but the jar was heavy and the easiest way to get it out was by the hack entrance.

Constable Owen: Wasn’t that done to dodge the Police as you knew they were at the front door? —No

To the S.AI.: He did not see the Native put the money down. He had no suspicion that the beer was for the Native.

Constable Owen: But lie asked

you for it. Witness: I didn't think of that. The S.M.: I suppose you wouldn't as he had asked for live gallons a little previously. You knew F lor didn’t want five gallons of ne'er. You did it to dodge the provisions of the Act if the truth's known. Witness: 1 didn't, think that. The S.M.: Perhaps you don't think. Decision was reserved.