HOTEL LICENSEE’S LAPSES.

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 130, 29 April 1926, Page 8

HOTEL LICENSEE’S LAPSES.

A BUDGET OF “ BLISTERS.” Several Youths Convicted. Fines and Costs Total £3S 11s 6d. There was what might facetiously he termed “ a budget of blisters ” issued in connection with the Okoroire Springs Hotel recently, as a result cf which the licensee and several other persons appeared i.i the Matamata S.M. Court on Thursday before Mr. J. 11. Salmon, S.M. Some of the charges were brought forward by the Matamata police and others by the Pataruru police. The court was throng-ed with curious auditors. Two youtns appeared to answer charges of having been on licensed premises, Okoroire Hotel, illegally. Both were convicted and fined £1 each and costs 7s. Four other youths were charged with having appeared on licensed premises, the Okoroire Hotel, after hours, and these were all fined £l, with 7s costs and 3s 4d mileage. The licensee, James Chalmers, was mulcted as follows: For opening licensed premises, on 23rd March, after hours, £lO and costs 17s. Fof selling liquor after hours, £3 and costs 7s. For supplying liquor to persons under 21 years of age, £3 and costs 7s. For opening for sale of liquor after hours, on 21st March, £5 and costs 17s. For selling liquor after hours, 21st March, £3 and costs 7s. For “ exposing ” liquor for sale after hours on 21st March, convicted and costs 7s. There was a further case in which one John Glen Gould was fined £1 and 7s costs on each of two charges, namely, being a prohibited person he had procured liquor, and, secondly, that he was found on licensed premises, the Okoroire Hotel. Sergeant Quinn, of Rotorua, conducted the cases for the Matamata and Putaruru police, on account of the latter being witnesses. Mr. Hutchison appeared for Gould, and stated that accused was a friend of the licensee and the latter’s wife, and had quite overlooked the fact that he was not entitled to be on licensed premises. On the one occasion he had fallen to the temptation of having a whisky and soda.—£l and costs on each charge. Regarding the charges of serving liquor after hours on March 23, Constable Murphy (Putaruru) stated that he had seen four men come out of the hotel. The bar door was open; men were in the bar, and the licensee behind the bar, with his coat on; all the members had glasses on the counter. The licensee admitted having supplied the seven men in the bar with drink. To counsel: The charge of exposing liquor for sale depended on the fact o.f the bar door being open. The hotel was splendidly conducted; there was no drunkenness, and the bar was a very small one.

Constable Cotter, Putaruru, gave evidence of having seen men walking in and out of the bar. He was told that the bar door was open for fresh air. There were glasses on the bar, and the men admitted having liquor. Counsel submitted that the bar door was opened by one Colbeck, a boarder, without reference to the licensee. It was not, therefore, “ exposure ” any more than would opening the windows. He quoted the case White v. Vestor, to show that “ exposure ” must be something done prior to the sale, and not something- done incidentally during the sale. The liquor was not on view to outsiders. He submitted .that the cases were very trivial, and not a flagrant offence against the law. There .could be a conviction for keeping- open, even if no sale were made. On the charge where the boys were supplied, the licensee was in the habit of supplying one of them with, liquor for his employer. Constable Heeps had been there till nearly 10 p.m. before catching anyone. Constable Heeps: You don’t know how long I had been there. Counsel: You keep quiet. (Laughter). The fact that the licensee did not know Constable Heeps, counsel submitted, showed that there was not much trouble as a rule at Okoroire. A country hotelkeeper was in a difficult position, inasmuch as his customers often could not get to the hotel in the daytime. The hotel was equal in its conduct to any in New Zealand; no “ soakers ” or “ wasters ” were encouraged. Mr. Chalmers kept the house clear of undesirables. The bestclass of people in New Zealand patronised the house. Sometimes the hotel was visited by undesirables, and these were turned away. On two occasions recently car loads of revellers were turned away. Counsel entered a copy of the !i----cej-see’s balance-sheet. The hotel obviously did no - depend on the bar trade, he said. Gray Francis Coileck, boarder at the Okoroire Hotel on March 21, admitted that he opened the bar door before he had been in the bar a minute. He had been in only a few minutes when the police came in. To the sergeant: He was not a smoker, and could not stand the smoke that was why he opened the door. There were three boarders in the bar room, and four young fellows came in afterwards. Constable Heeps gave evidence of having found two youths with liquor in the car. He had taken them back to the hotel and confronted the licensee, who admitted serving the liquor, stating that it was for the fathers of the boys. One of the fathers; however, was dead, the boy* having no relations at all. < The defence he’M- that the word was “ employer,” and not “ father.” His Worship said it Was clear that the premises were open for the sale of liquor at a time when they should have been closed. It was- quite true that the licensee of a country hotel was bothered a lot more by the travelling public for liquor after hours than were city licensees, but the Act did not discriminate; the Act laid down certain hours, and the bench was bound by the act. For this offence on 21st March, a fine of £5 and costs would be imposed. For the selling of liquor on the same date, £3 and costs. Regarding the charge of “ exposure ” for sale, the authorities were very clear on the point, holding that where the premises were open and strangers present, and liquor exposed on the shelves it was “ exposure.” He was bound to enter a conviction on this charge, though the offence - was only technical. Costs 7s. Regarding the charge on the 23rd March, of having the premises open, this occasion amounted to a second offence, two days after the police had first visited the hotel. The fine would be £lO, and costs 17s; for the selling of liquor on the same date, £2 and costs 17s; for the selling of liquor on the same date to a person under 21 years, £2 and 7s costs. Sergeant Quinn asked whether the license would he endorsed. His Worship replied in the negative stating that it appeared from the evidence that the hotel bore a good character previously, and was well conducted g-enerallv.