S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 3 February 1919, Page 4

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—FRIDAY. (Before E. Page, Esq., S.M.), Licensing ease. Tho case in which A. J. Hulme, licensee* of the Family Hotel, Otaki, was charged with certain breaches of the licensing laws, was continued after we wont to press on Friday last. Cross-examined by the Inspector of Police, A. J. Hulme said: Warry is a thief and pretty well a drunkard. He is not to be trusted. I admit I would help him if he would pull himself together. I>- have lost about 40 fowls from my place, and. he is the only man I caught. My back yard is a dumping, ground, both for full and empty bottles,’ strango beer being left in strange places by passers through tho yard. I have heard it rumoured that Warry in-, tended to get even with mo for charging him for the fowls. I beliovo the action is through spito on Warry’* part. I have oftimes complained to the constable about Warry being on the, premises. John Ingram, librarian, stated: I dine at the “Family,” and was in the hotel, on the 7th December. I saw Warry in the doorway to the entrance to the bar. He asked for a drink, .but Hulme refused to servo him, and told him to go away. If Warry Baid ho , purchased boer I would give it a denial. N* money was tendered, and no beer was passed over. 1 have always heard Hulme refuse to serve Warry. To the Inspectors The licensee was behind the counter while I was there; Warry only partially showed- himself round the doorway. Kosina Hulme, wife of the licensee, stated: I know Warry to be prohibited. On December 7th I saw Warry come in tho side gate, and next heard Mr Hulme order him out. Charlotte Hausen stated-: I am an employee at the 'hotel and remember seeing Warry at tho hotel. I heard Mr Hulme order him to get out. To tho Inspector: I never saw him I carrying anything as he W’ent out. I Judgment in this case was reserved, pending the hearing of further charges

. A Further Caso. j Constable Sathcrley stated: On tho 1 23rd December I was in Mill Road and ‘ saw Tom Ay re come along. When he saw me ho turned .back; he had a jar in his possession which ho put down at a Native place. Later I saw him near the Family Hotel conversing with i Hulme. The latter then went into the hotel and entered the bar, leaving Ayre and Moses outside. The former then j went into the back yard towards tho t back door. It was dark at the time, i Later Hulme came to him and I heard i the rattle of bottles. Ayre then came | out towards the back gate, and when i he saw me he lay down on the grass. I caught hold of him and saw two botj ties in his coat pocket. I took them | away and went to Hulme and said that ' it was no good mo warning him, as ho ! persisted in serving prohibited persons. Hulme said I was hard on him, that ho ! was doing no good, and asked me to let ! tho matter drop. ■ Cross-examined by Mr Jackson, the constable repeated the major portion of his evidence. He said he treated all the publicans alike, and it was not his fault if he had to take proceedings : against them for breaches of the law. The Inspector suggested an adjournment, to call Ayre, who was expected to be present on the previous charge. Mr Jackson objected to an adjournment as it would prove a hardship on his client. Under the circumstances the Inspector agreed to let the case proceed. , Mr Jackson submitted the ease was even weaker than in Warry's ease. There should, he said, bo some corroboration of police evidence—it would not be. safe to convict on such evidence as it was generally biassed to a certain extent. He would call evidence that would be contradictor}' to that given by tho constable. He considered tho police; should have taken Ayre to Hulme, and taxed him with tho offence. This would have been only fair to Hulme. The S.M. considered there was no definite evidence as to the supplying of liquor, and he would therefore dismiss the charge. On the ebargo in Warry’s case, Hulme was convicted. The S.M. said, as it was the first time the defendant had been before the' Court, he would not impose a heavy fine, neither . would he endorse tho license. A fine of £5 would be inflicted for supplying a prohibits!? fierson, with court costs 7s. Warry was ndt- allowed expenses. Tho charge of allowing S- person to remain on the premises was withdrawn.