ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Otaki Mail, 17 November 1922, Page 4

ON LICENSED PREMISES.

At the sitting ol the Magistrate’s Court in Levin yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Clarence Hook, George Fox, Peter Ronberg and Sidney Smith were charged with being found on the licensed premises of the Levin Hotel on Sunday, October 22, 1922, at a time when the premises were required to he closed. John Fraser, licensee of the hotel, was also charged with unlawfully exposing liquor for sale; on the above date. Constable Bagrie prosecuted, and Mr .1. J. McGrath (instructed by Messrs 1 Harper and Merton) appeared for the defendants, Fraser, Hook and Fox. i The other two defendants, Ronberg and Smith, were not represented by counsel. THE POLICE EVIDENCE.

Constable Bagrie staled in evidence that on Sunday afternoon, October 22. lie was riding a bicycle down Oxford Street, and when opposite the Levin Hotel lie saw Ronberg come out of the private entrance of the hotel, noticeably under the Influence of liquor. Witness rods- on up the street and earner back and went into the hotel. He knocked.' on the bar parlour door and heard voices within. Someone asked, "Who is there?" Witness replied "Police.” The door Was not opened immediately. He could hear "a noise as though people were walking through the bar, and he went down the passage to the back door leading to the bar. the door opened ahd he went in. Standing in the bar f Was Smith, Hook and Fox, ail of Whom were residents of Levin and not boarding at the Hotel. He asked what they were doing there. Mr Biggens came forward. Witness asked where the licensee (Mr Fraser) Was. Biggens said the licensee was in the bar parlour, but on going to get him, \ Biggens said Mr. Fraser could not he ! found. Smith said he had come to see Biggens about the lease of a section to run a cow on. Either Fox or Hook said "ft is hard lines to be caught for a. squash and soda.” Witness went “ along the street and saw Ronberg and asked what he had been doing in the . hotel. He said he went, there to see J Wally Hume, but did not see him, adding that the only man he spoke to was Mr Fraser. Witness returned to the hotel and saw Fraser, and inquired where lie was a few minutes earlier. Fraser replied that he was somewhere about the place, and did not know what had happened. Cross-examined by Mr McGrath, witness said ihe heard someone walking through the bar as if making for the back door. He walked down the passage quietly and opened the door

and found the; defendants. He regarded Biggens' as head barman, and apparently a responsible man there.

Mr Fraser was the licensee and if he had anything to say of a business nature ho would say it to Fraser. Smith had informed witness that he went to the hotel to see Mr Biggens about the lease of a paddock. Either Hook or Fox said it was bad luck to he caught for a squash and soda. Mr McGrath: You found a bottle on one of them. Witness: Yes. Mr McGrath: Did you open the bottle.? Witness: No, I did not. Mr McGrath stated the hotilo contained training oil, which these two young men had been using in training that afternoon. Witness said he handed ‘lie bottle hack. He did not know these young men were athletes, or that they were in training. RONBERG’S STORY. Peter Charles Ronberg stated that lie had had two or three drinks on the Sunday in question at the private place where he stayed. • He passed trie Levin Hotel in the afternoon with a friend, and stopped at the door and inquired if Mr Hume was about and

.was told "no." He then went on with his friend, lie was not m the Levin Hotel that day, and never saw Mr Fraser, lie denied the statement of the police that he (witness) hau seen Fraser, the licensee,' that day. Constable Bagrie: “When I ques tioned you, you said you had gone to see Hume. Is that correct? Witness: Yes.

Constable Bagrie: And did you no; say you could not see him, hut saw j Fraser? - s Witness: No. Constable Bagrie: Du you insinuate that I am perjuring myself? Witness said tliai was a hard thing ior him to reply to. Constable Bagrie: Do you know ot any reason why I should attempt to njure you or Fraser? Witness: No. Constable Bagrie: I have always reated you as a respectable citizen? Witness: Yes, and I have done the tame to you. Constable Bagrie: 1 want to know why you insinuate that part oi lay

evidence is right and the rest wrong? Witness repeated that he admittedsay tag lie went to see Hume, but denied. that lie went on the hotel premises, or told the constable he saw the licensee, The police asked where he had got liquor from that day, and witness replied he had got some from a friend at the private house where they' stayed. Constable Bagrie entered the lox again, and stated that when he saw Ronberg come out of the hotel there i was no one with him and no one with-1 in a chain of him. Mr McGrath: Why did you not put the Court in possession of the fact that Ronberg said he had got the liquor from a friend instead of leaving the inference that he had got it at the hotel? Witness said he had not done so intentionally. He had nothing to hide. Mr Grath: ft is the proper thing to lay all the facts before the Court. Counsel submitted that the case against Fraser must he dismissed, and be quoted a case in Palmerston North, in which a licensee’s wife was prosecuted for exposing liquor for sale. The information was set aside on the grounds that the licensee's wife had no authority from the licensee to ex-

pose the liquor, fn the present case Biggens had no authority whatever 1o be in Ihe bar. He was merely staying at the hotel, and Was not even an empleyee. Counsel also quoted other judgments in support of the point he had raised, and said on that ground the charge could not stand. WENT IN FOR A SQUASH AND SODA. Clarence Hook slated he was in the hotel when the police came in. Prior to that he and Fox were training at the Domain for the Labour Day sports. After finishing training that afters noon they called at the hotel and had a squash and soda. On hearing a knock at the door they ran through the bar, and on opening the back door they found the constable. Fox iiad a bottle of training oil and towels. The constable grabbed the oil and opened It, but gave it back. He asked what they had had to drink, and witness said a squash and soda.

George Fox corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and said being under 21 he did not wish to’be caught and ran through the bar and out the back "door, where they met Constable Bagrie. Constable Bagrie: Did you hear me say "Police” when I knocked at ihe door? Witness: Yes. Constable Bagrie: Why did Biggens not open the. door? Witness! He followed us through the bar. EXPLANATION ACCEPTED. His Worship said he would give Hook and Fox the benefit of the doubt. They had given an explanation to the police and it seemed an honest one There was corroborative evidence that

they were in training and had their

paraphernalia with them. The information against these young men would be dismissed. The case against Ronberg was different. Ronberg’s explanation was not satisfactory', and Smith could have gone at some other time to arrange about a lease. Each would be fined £1 with costs 7/. LICENSEE GETS BENEFIT OF DOUBT As regards the charge against Fra|ser, there was no evidence that Biggens had any authority from the licensee, a,nd the case was not so strong ns the Palmerston North one r wlich had been quoted by counsel, and wheh had been dismissed. His Worship said Tie would therefore give Friser the benefit of ihe doubt, and dismiss the information against him.