ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENSING LAWS

Otaki Mail, 21 May 1923, Page 4

ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENSING LAWS

CHARGES OF PROCURING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY. At the Magistrate's Court at Levin, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Charles Mudgway and. William Samuel Allaway, were charged with that they were found on licensed premises, to wit, the Grand Hotel, Levin, at an hour when such premises were not open for the sale of spirituous liquors. Frank Godden, barman, wa» charged with supplying liquor, and Jabez Bobbington, lioensee, with permitting liquor to be sold on his premises at unauthorised hours.

Constable Bagrie appeared for the police, and Mr J. J. McGrath, of Wellington, conducted the defence. Mudgway and Allaway pleaded guilty -and on behalf of .the defendants, Mr McGrath applied to have all three cases taken together, which was agreed to. 1 Constable Bagriie, sworn, deposed that on Sunday morning, 29th April, 1923, at 10.45 a.m., he visited the Grand Hotel and found Mudgway and Aliaway sitting in a small room opposite the Jiar-parlour entrance. On a small table in front of them were two full glasses of beer. When asked who supplied them Mudgway replied "They do not belong to us.” He then asked each defendant what he was doing there. They both said they had come in to try and get a drink, but had not got it. Mudgway said he had got a packet of cigarettes. Witness then knocked at the door and the porter, Miles, came out of the bar-door. I To Mr McGrath; He asked Miles what he knew about it and he' said: , "Nothing." He then asked him to bring the licensee. In a few minutes the licensee came into tlie room dressed in pyjamas and overcoat. The glasses were pointed out to him and when he was asked what was in them, he tasted .one and said that it was beer. The licensee and witness then went into the bar, and found Lloyd 1 Fletcher in the bar and he asked him if he knew who had supplied the two glasses of beer. He said he did not, blit probably Godden had. Witness asked the licensee where Godden was i and he said he was out at the back.

He asked the licensee to bring (him in

Godden admitted that he had served the two glasses of beer to two boarders named Breer and Wakelin. He said Breer Was in the room when he took the liquor in, but he did not see the other boarder. Witness then took the licensee with him and interviewed Breer, who said the two glasses of beer belonged to him. One was for

the porter, Arthur Miles. He bad gone into the bar and got the drinks from Godden and taken them into the room where they had been found. Questioned by Mr McGrath, witness

said that Mr Bebbington had been licensee of the hotel for over two years, and had always conducted it In a very satisfactory manner. There was no doubt in his mind that Mr Biebbington was in bed at the time of j his visit. He had been quite frank and bad given all the information and assistance asked for. Mr McGrath : When you went Into the house, was the porter, Miles, not. scrubbing the passage. Witness: No, he cajne out of the bar and started scrubbing. Witness could not say how long the men were in the house. They were in the parlour which opened on to ■■he public passage about 20ft from the bar slide. They were facing the door which was pulled to, but not shut. Mr McGrath: I suggest to you that the beers were on the table behind the door.

Witness: No, I say that they were on the table in the centre of the room.

Mr McGrath : Now, I say that these beers you speak of were full glasses. Witness: Yes, that is , s o. There was froth on them.

Mr McGrath: Very' temperate men to sit. in front of two glasses of beer on Sunday morning and not even blow the froth off them.

Proceeding. Constable Bagrie Said that the porter was cleaning out the bar. which was quite a usual thing on Sunday morning. The barman had evidently been in the bar and had gone out to the back. The bar door was closed but. the slide was open. There was no sign of any persons on tlie premises except the two men in the room.

Mr McGrath: Was Godden quite frank with you in his replies. Witness: He gave the answers I have mentioned.

Mr McGrath: Was there any chance of "readying a tale.” Witness: Yes. When the licensee came to him, the two rnen lelt the room, and could have had a chance o' arranging a tale with Godden. Mr McGrath: Do you seriously sar that these men came into the room' prepared to tell you something that was not true?

Witness: I say that there was time and opportunity to arrange a defence if they wished to, and to my belief they were not telling the truth. Mr McGrath: I suggest that Godden said the beer was served to Mr Breer for (himself and the porter. Do you not think it possible that you mistook the word "porter" for “boarder.” Witness: No, I do not. He said "for Breer and a boarder,” as my notes slate.

Mr McGrath: Where did you see Breer? Witness: In a room close by.

Mr McGrath: There was no chance c.f .somebody having told him about this matter.

Witness: The licensee might have seen (him. Breer had given his answers quite openly an 3 had told him that the beers were for himself and a boa?<ler. This concluded the case -tor the police.

Mr McGrath, in asking that the case against the licensee and barman be dismissed, said that there was no suggestion that the licensee had sold the beer. That was agreed, and it seemed to be merely a question of two men going into a hotel to get a drink. Was it likely that jf these drinks had be-

longed to these two men that they .would have left them there full. The j only reasonable thing was that the, beers, had been supplied to boarders, ‘ not to these men. The licensee was, not responsible for liquor supplied by any person not athorised by him to do so. His clients denied that any beer was sold; but if beer had been sold, the barman was riot authorised to sell or supply it outside authorised hours. Mr Bebbington, as wa& the custom in ail hotels, look stock every Sunday morning, and Godden got the keys from him in the morning in order that the porter might clean out the bar anti stock ready for Mr Bebbington stocktaking later. Even admit ring tite story of die police, it | could not be proved that any drink' was sold to anybody oilier than a hoarder. The whole evidence went to show that no drink was sold to any unauthorised person and it was quite clear to him that the case of the police must fail. His Worship; You must call evidence: I am not satisfied that this is

Jabez Bebbington. called, said his first intimation of the affair was when the porter knocked on his door, saying that the police were in the house and j that he was needed. When he got ] down the porter wms cleaning the pas- ’ sage. The porter had told him that the police were in the small room across from the bar. The only persons lie saw there were Mudgway and Allawav. He had not at this time seen the constable. The men were sitting by the windoW, and the table was behind the door with Constable Bagrie sitting beside it. His Worship: He bad not. touched the beer either? The police must be improving. (Laughter). Mr McGrath: Or degenerating, your Worship. Witness said the men admitted that they had come in to try to get a drink. He and Constable Bagrie liad gone into the bar and found the porter cleaning the brassware. Questioned hv the constable, the porter denied any knowledge of the drinks, but said that perhaps Godden had served them. He had, on Constable Bagrie'c, suggestion got Godden, calling him from the back door and Godden had followed

him in. He liad not at the time Imagined that a charge “would he laid against, him and only wanted to clear the matter up. Constable Bagrie had asked Godden if he knew anything about the drinks, and Godden admitted that he had served two long beers to Breer. one he understood being for another hoarder. He stated that be j remembered the \vor3s spokn by Breer J and was certain that, he had asked for j drinks for himself and another boarder. After hours witness always kep T i the. keys in his own possession, and 1 if a boarder wanted a drink, served him himself. Xo person .had authority from him 10 supply liquor after hours. ‘ The barman hafd got the keys j from him on this Sunday, a? was j necessary in order to clean out the, j bar and get the «tock ready for stock-

taking. , Constable Bagrie: You remember me j asking Godden who took the beers j into the room ? I

Witness: I think your words were: "Where did you serve the beers." Godden said be had served them In the room. Continuing, witness stated that he remembered going with the constable to Breer and asking him where he got the drinks. Breer bad replied "At the bar!" Breer's statement was that he had got the beers for himself and Arthur, the porter. He thought that Constable Bagrie'-- note to the effect ■ hat Breer and the porter went into uie 155 r was incorrect. Constable Bagrie: Is it usual for men to call for drinks, place them in a room, and then go away leaving them there?

Witness: it is not impossible— Mi- Worship: I do not think you need answer that question. If the drink was got for the porter, what was he doing in the bar cleaning

Mr McGrath: Your Worship, I would like to clear up ibis point. Trie porter, Miles, for whom Greer got the beer was in the passage way. His Worship -. The police state that Miles came out of the bar. Mr Bebbington cannot clear this up, as the porter was in the passage when be ■Skme dowm.

Frank Godden, sworn, gave evidence on the lines of the previous witness. He had got the keys from "Mr Bebbington that morning in the course of his work. He was out at the back when Mr Bebbington had called him. He had supplied the drinks to Greer understanding that one was for Wakelin, a- he thought Greer bad said he wanted the drinks for himself and a boarder. He might have said for himself and the porter. He had taken the beer; to the door of the bar-par-

lour and handed them to Breer. His reason for thinking that the boarder was Wakelin was that he. had see* him about. He had no authority from Mr Bebbington to serve the-e drinks and had exceeded his duties in doing so. He had not seen. Allaway or Mudgway in the hotel.

Cross-examined, he remembered the notes taken down by the police. He understood that the drinks were for Breer and Wakelin. but it might have been for the porter. He did not know why the porter had not claimed one of these drinks but perhaps It had been ordered for him without Ms knowledge. This was not unusual. Breer, jwom, said he remembered Constable Bagrie coming to the hotel, where he was a boarder He had not had any drink that morning, but had ordered two drinks. These he had got from Godden at the bar-door. When ordering the drink- he had said that they were for himself and the porter. It was possible that the barman had taken the word “porter" for “hoarder.” He had got the drinks at the bar-door and taken them into the room.

Constable' Bagrte Who for* • Witness: Myself end the porter. Constable Barrie: You had no drink prerlously? witness: Kane Whatever.. I did no? e-yen set- tttecßifc.

To Mr McGrath: No one had spoken to him of the business previously to his meeting Constable Bagrie in the passage. W. Allaway. recalled, said that he and Mudgway had not asked tor drinks as they saw no one to ask. They had just arrived when the police came. in. Hfs reason for being on the premises was that he had not been feeling well and wanted a square gin, Mudgway had stated that he had got .a packei of cigarettes but that was wrong. He was rattled by the police discovering him there.

His Worship, summing up, said that he would have to give the licensee and barman the benefit, of the doubt. It was not likely that if the drinks were ordered for these men that they would be left, They must, accept, the evidence of Godden in ibis respect.

The ease against the licensee and barman would be dismissed. Mudgway and Allaway would be fined fiend costs 7s.