ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1006, 7 March 1883, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

At the-R.M., Court yesterdaymorning, Owen McEittrick, licensee of the Masonic hotel, was, charged with selling liquor during prohibited hours : viz., Sunday February, 25. . - s *

Sergeant Donovan conducted the; case for the . prosecution;-and Mr Barton appeared for the defendant. After all witnesses had been ordered out of the Court, Sergeant i James Kearney who stated: I am a farm- labourer working for.Mr Derritt. - J; recollect . Sunday week, the/25th ult, X know the defendant and recollect being in his housejpn the day in question for cbqut half an hour. To. the best of my belief it • was about half-past four. I went in in: %

company .with 'a man named Faghey. I had a glass of beer and I believe Faghey had the same. I. paid for the drinks. A young boy supplied us., I don’t know if .he is Mr McKittrich’s son. I think the boy was in the bar. *»There is a sliding shutter or door between the bar and the dining-room where : we were. 1 saw another man there. ’. We had a second drink in company with the. other,man, but U ; do not know "if ho paid for it. That same evening I returned To McKitlrick’s alone but! had no more drinks. Ido not recollect, an old man named “Bill”

coming in. I heard no argument about sixpence- change. Cross-examined,: Mr McKittrick was not present when the liquor was sold, neither Mrs McKittrick. A young boy‘served us. . Denis Faghey : I am a labourer, residing in Pa tea." I iknow. The defendant. I recollect going to his house on Sunday week in company with the last witness, about half-past three in the;afternoon. We had drinks. I had a pint of beer, and so had Kearney. A little boy, McKittrick’s son, supplied us. We received the drinks in the dining ro.om; ■ There was another man there and he “ shouted” for us. After

receiving the -drinks I went outside and Kearney went home. * After a while I entered again, and had another pint of beer:! There were four.'men there at the. time.' I paid defendant. IJJ recollect a man named Cunningham coming .in, and getting a drink, for which he paid McKittrick ; also an argument .arising between two with regard to sixpence change. I took Cunningham .out for The. sake of preventing a row. I then went up the street towards the .town. I was half drunk at the time. I recollect Constable Crozier

cautioning me against making a row in the street. I fell in the street, and „my wife had to take' me home. ' ■ j Cross-examined—lt was? the liquor I got at ,McKUtrick’s which , made me drunk. I didn’t get anyjiquorelsewhere that day. On the second occasion of my going into the hotel, McKittrick supplied the'drink. I was sober enough to see who supplied me. I went into no other hotel that day. I had to 'p : asß Odger’s ;hotel, but? I didn’t . go in either on my way down to. McKittrick’s or’coming back. , William Cunningham deposed : I am a labourer. I know the defendant, and recollect being in his hotel on Sunday week, about 7orß in the evening. I had a glass of beer, which Mr McKittrick I gave him a shilling, and on going away I wanted the sixpence change which'was owing to me, but Mr McKittrick wouldn’t give me it. I saw others . in the .house drinking. - ...Faghey- wasn’t sober.’ ' ; Alexander Crozier, constable, stationed at Patba, stated that on the 25th ultimo, about half past nine in the evening, while going down Bedford street, he met Cunningham' and Faghey opposite Aitchison’s —They were.speaking very loud, a discussion apparently having, arisen. They appeared to have come from the Masonic •hotel. - r j ■:•/ , • This was the case for the prosecution. Mr" Barton opened the case for the defence, by calling • Owen McKittrick, the defendant, who said : I recollect the Sunday referred tp. Between 4 and 5 that afternoon I was about the house. T did not sell drink to any of the witnesses. I never gave, authority to any of my children to sell liquor. The bar was locked that day; There is only opening to the bar when it is locked, and no one can get in except itfy own famlly. ; I did not sell any drink that evening, to either Cunningham or tghey: ' Lfemember turning’ them out. met them hi the passage insisting on getting liquor. 1 told them they had better go home; Faghey still insisted oh having Jiquor. I then promised to give them sohle if they would go out. When I got them out ,1 locked the door. As one of them liad left a parcel behind him I ’sent it but. ‘ T heard/ them quarrelling going towards the' town for some time after. I knomFaghey to bo a drunkard. I-wbuld not supply anyone with.’liquor on Sunday. ... Cross-examined : I believe Kearney to 'be ! a respectable witness. There are not five doors leading into the bar. lam not aware tfie; l%w t holds me accountable for drinks supplied by my son. Cunningham And Faghey were'drunk, and both gave me trouble a few days before. John Keys, labourer: I recollect the 25th ult.»-1 was in McKiftrick’s house where I way boarding, I ! was therein the afternoon when ! saw Kearney and Faghey. In the evening I saw Cunning-: ham, and I also saw Faghey opining in holding on by the wall. He afterwards offered me sixpence, asking me to get’a drink for him as McKittrick wouldn’t give him one. I refused*- Cunningham was * angry because McKittrick wouldn’t supply him, r with liquor., ‘I, did not see any one get drink. /Cross-examined : I don’t know whether

Faghey was served, with drink before I came downstairs.. The evidence of the last witness was corroborated by James Lament and Patrick Gwyder. ’ * r Mr Barton in addressing the Court said that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution was evidently coloured by the fact of their being refused drink. 'Willi regard to the alleged supplying of liquor by Mr McKittrick’s son he said that it was extremely likely that the lad had been induced to. serve the men by their promising him some small reward. He submitted that the evidence on which the Court should deal should be of the strongest character on account of the severe penalty to which a publican was rendered liable. He thought that under the circumstances the case should be dismissed.

His Worship inflicted a penalty of 40s with costs 28s.