BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3774, 31 March 1928, Page 2

BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

SEQUEL TO POLICE VISIT.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.Mv, R. McMullian, licensee of the Family Hotel, was charged (1) with selling liquor after hours and (2) with exposing liquor for sale on the night of March 24th. Charges of being illegally on the licensed premises pf the Family Hotel on the same date were preferred against Mrs. J. Barrett, Mrs. E. Davcy and R. Davey. Mrs. Barrett did not appear but a plea of guilty was entered by counsel for the licensee (Mr. Bergin). Mr. and Mrs. Davey, pleaded not guilty, and were unrepresented by counsel. IN A PRIVATE ROOM. Constable Owen outlined the ease for the prosecution, and in evidence stated that on the evening in question, accompanied by Constable Bell, he made an inspection of the Family Hotel at 11.20 p.m. They went upstairs and knocked at the door of a back room marked “private.” The door was immediately opened by the licensee who was asked if there were any non-boarders in the room. He replied that there were. In the room were Mrs. Barrett, Mrs. Dowdall, and Mr. and Mrs. Davey. There was a quantity of liquor on tho table and evidence that drinking had been carried on there for some time. On the table was a bottle of been three-quarters full, a bottle of gin two-thirds empty and several glasses. An empty beer bottle was under the table, and Mrs. Davey was holding an empty glass in her hand. The licensee said that Mr. and Mrs. Davey had booked rooms for the night and on inspecting the boarder’s book this had been found to be correct, but when the surprise visit was made, Mrs. Davey had said “We intended going home, but now we’re caught we might as well stay the night.” Mrs. Dowd all’s name appeared in the visitors’ book also but she was a stranger to Foxton. The Daveys lived about a mile and a-half out of town. All accused had their hats on when witness visited the room. Mrs. Barrett offered no excuse for being on the premises. To Mr. Bergin: The boarders’ book showed that Mr. and Mrs. Davey had stayed at the hotel about three months previously. Nothing was said about taking Mrs. Barrett home. She lived only a short distance from the hotel. Neither the licensee, nor anyone else, left the upstairs portion of the building while the police were there. Constable Bell gave corroborative evidence and said the room referred to was a very small room, about 10ft. x 12ft., situated at the rear of the building, and could not be observed from either the front or side of the hotel. It was not an ordinary sitting room and was fjirnished with a couch, desk-table and chairs. The sitting room of the hotel was located in the front of ihe building. Mrs. Davey had said that she had just been to room 10 and put on her hat and was just going home when the police arrived. At six p.m;. witness saw all four accused leave the hotel and walk down Union Street.

To Mr. Bergin: The room register showed a number 12 opposite Mrs. Davey’s name, which had been altered to 10. WHEN OLD FRIENDS MEET.

Mr. Bergin, for the licensee, said that the main point was whether the accused were bona fide lodgers. Mrs. Barrett and Mrs. Dowdall were friends of long standing, in fact Mrs. Dowdall had been Mrs. Barrett’s bridesmaid some 18 or 19 years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Davey had gone into the hotel for refreshments at about 5.20 on the day in question, and had booked t a room for the night. There they met Mrs. Barrett and Mrs. Dowdall. Mrs. Dowdall had already booked a room. At 6 p.m. they all decided to go home with Mrs. Barrett and assist her with her parcels. The Daveys and Mrs. Dowdall went back to the Hotel for dinner and later returned to Mrs. Barrett’s and all subsequently went back to the hotel, where they stayed until the .police arrived. No doubt Mrs. Barrett was unlawfully on licensed premises. When the party arrived back at the hotel they took off their hats and coats in the rooms booked, it was when they were preparing to accompany Mrs. Barrett home later on that the licensee suggested that they should have a final drink before leaving. It was then that the police had arrived. It was not an uncommon thing for people about town to stay at an hotel. The Daveys had previously done so on the 30th and 31st December. The S.M. (facetiously): They went there for New Year’s Eve! (laughter). Mr. Bergin:' Yes. It might not be a very thrifty means of spending week-ends but it is quite lawful. Continuing, he said that while they were boarders at the hotel they were entitled to be supplied with liquor. The prosecution had suggested a “frame-up” on the licensee’s part, but this had not been so. The door had been opened immediately on request, and the police told everything. They had found the names in the register as told, and room 10 had been used by the defendants. Mrs. Dowdall had brought Mrs. Barrett into the hotel with her which may have been unlawful, but even so the licensee was entitled to supply the boarder and guest with refreshments. A LAST “SPOT.” R, McMullian, licensee of the

hotel, gave evidence that the quartette arrived at the hotel about 5.20. Mrs. Dowdall and Mr. and Mrs. Davey booked rooms for the night, and were in for dinner after which they went out and returned about 9.20 with Mrs. Barrett. Davey asked for drinks, and as there were some flax cutters in the commercial room, he told them to go upstairs into the private room and had taken them up two bottles of beer, a bottle of gin, peppermint, squash and soft drinks. Later in the evening the ladies went to their rooms for their hats and coats to see Mrs. Barrett home, and it was then that, he suggested a last “spot” before they went. It was then that the police arrived. Mrs. Davey evidently got excited and said they were on the point of going home. The Daveys stayed, all night and left at 10.30 next morning. They had previously stayed at the hotel over night. Constable Owen: On your evidence the party was drinking for two solid hours! —Yes.

The light in the room could not he seen from either the front car side of the hotel —No, only from the rear.

Why did you not use the sitting room in the front of the building? —Because of a child being sick in the next room.

Why didn’t you use the commercial room after the flax cutters had gone? Why use a secret room? —The room is not a secret room, but used for writing and other purposes. Wjho took Mrs. Barrett home? —I and my wife did. Mr. Bergin: What reasons did you have for doing that?—The others were too upset after the visitation of the police.' A HOME AWAY FROM HOME. Elizabeth Davey, in evidence, said her home was two and a-half miles from Whyte’s Hotel over a rough road. She and her husband had stayed at the hotel on two previous occasions. Witness had known Mrs. Barrett for over two years, and was friendly enough to regard her place as home. It was to Mrs. Barrett’s she alluded when she told the police she was going home. She did not remember saying that they, might as well stay the night now they were caught.

The S.M.: The licensee said you said it as well as the police. Did you have any luggage with you?—No. Do you always stay at the hotel without luggage?—No, I usually bring night attire, but on this occasion I had arranged to borrow a nightdress from the wife of the licensee.

Richard Davey gave corroborative evidence. When they returned to the hotel at 9.30 p.m. he asked for drinks and his wife, Mrs. Dowdall and the licensee • “shouted.” They had only four rounds of drinks during the two hours. Gladys Dowdall in evidence said she had known Mrs. Barrett-17 years. She had stayed with her from Wednesday until, .Saturday, when she went to the hotel as Mrs. Barrett was expecting visitors. After visiting Mrs. Barrett in the evening, witness asked her to return with them to the hotel. AN HONEST ANSWER. The S.M.: What did you ask her to return to the hotel at that hour of the night for? —There’s no harm in that. What did you do it for? —I asked her to come back and have a drink with me. ' The S.M.: Well that’s honesty anyhow (laughter). This concluded the case for the defence, and the S.M., in summing up, said that the ease did not altogether depend on whether the Daveys were bona fide boarders or not. There was no doubt at all about the licensee having supplied liquor to Mrs. Barrett who was not his guest and on that’'alone he could be convicted. He could not convert other people’s friends into his own guests in order to supply them with liquor. Apart from that, he was not at all satisfied with the Daveys. It was admitted by the licensee that they said they intended going home. Mrs. Davey had no luggage and there should be something more than the visitors book to' tell whether a person was a genuine boarder or not. People could not go into a hotel in the afternoon and book a room with a view to having a spree there after hours. Mrs. Davey said she had brought luggage previously and the absence of it on this occasion made the circumstances very suspicious. He was not satisfied with the licensee’s conduct. He had not only supplied the Daveys but Mrs. Barrett who was not a bona fide lodger. He would be convicted and fined £lO with costs £1 10s Od on the first charge. Mrs. Barrett, who pleaded guilty would be convicted and fined £1 with costs 10/-, and Mr. and Mrs. Davey £2 with costs 10/epeh. The second charge against the licensee was withdrawn.

William Ritchie and Allan Harper were each charged with being illegally on the licensed premises of the Post Office Hotel on the 25th February. Constable Bell gave evidence that he visited the Post Office Hotel at 0.40 p.m. on the date in question, and found both accused sitting on a settee inside the Hotel. Neither had an excuse to offer for being there, nor were they boarders., Both accused, who did n6t appear, were convicted and fined £2 with costs 10/- in Ritchie’s case and 15/- in Harper’s.