CHARGE AGAINST MANAKAU LICENSEE.

Shannon News, 24 October 1923, Page 4

CHARGE AGAINST MANAKAU LICENSEE.

SUPPLYING LIQUOR ON SUNDAYS. LEAVE OF. APPEAL GRANTED. At the Levin Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. J. L. Stout,.S.M., Alfred Walshaw, licensee of the Manakau Hotel, appeared on two charges of supplying liquor to members of a party of youths, on the evening of Sunday, September 16th. Senior-Sergeant Fraser, of Palmerston Northy appeared for \£he .police!, and Mr. J. J. McGrath for the defence.

In opening the case, Senior-Sergeant Fraser stated that the case for the police was that the party, returning from Levin where had bfeen drinking, had called in at the Manakau Hotel on their way back to Otaki and obtained certain drinks, this being borne out by the evidence of the two witnesses, Frederick John Edwards, and Harold Edward Baker, in respect of whom the charges were laid.

Frederick John Edwards, the first witness called, stated that he was not sure of the 'exact time the party left Levin. There were six in the party, Lloyd, Knox, Eikihana, Baker, Debreceny, and himself. They stopped at Manakau. th'e whole party going into, the hotel. In a small room just off the bar they had one long shandy each. The licensee supplied the liquor which witness paid for. There was another man present to whom Mr. Walshaw introduced him as the new proprietor, Mr. Capon. Cross-examined witness admitted that when ! i|he party "reached Otaki Grand Hotel Levin, and at the Manathcy were all drunk. Th'ey had not got liquor at any place except at the kau ;Hotel.. were not at the hotel more than 10 minutes. He could not say whether the front door was shut or not. They had not used any obscene language. It was a fact that one of the party was covered with mud as the result of riding a cow at the back of the Grand Hotel, at Levin. Harold Edward Baker remembered the Sunday in question. He could not say when the party left Levin, but it would be between 9 and 10 p.m. He drove the car which belonged to his' IThey lad gone into a room at the Manakau Hotel and had obtained a drink there. , "He was not sure who got the drinks. No questions were asked."

To Mr. McGrath: He had had his share of the beer obtained in Levin and was afterwards concerned in the trouble which occurred in Otaki. He was ,probably drunk. They had had to shout to get the licensee down. They had one glass of liquor in Manakau.

To Senior-Sergeant Fraser: He had not admitted when first interviewed by the police that he had got drink at -Manakau. At a second interview he had made' the admission. Ernest George Debreceny gave similar evidence. He was not concerned in the trouble at Otaki and although he had had drink was not by any oncans drunk. Constable Greggan deposed he had interviewed the defendant in company with Constable Bagrie, defendant making a 'statement (produced) to the 'effect that the party had come to tjie hotel and asked for drink which was refused, he supplying them with; two packets of cigarettes only. Only three of the boys came into the hotel. He had nqt introduced them to the new proprietor, who was not present. At time at which it was staged that the drink was supplied, Mr. Capon was licensee, having taken over the hotel that day. Mr. McGrath: This is a most extraordinary case, your Worship. When I Was instructed by Mr. Walshaw to take the case I asked him where the new licensee was at the time of the alleged supplying of liquor, and he had stated that he was in hjs bedroom. These youths now stated that he was present at the time. I contend that the new licensee is a most important witness and he should have been produced. I will ask your Worship, if you arc not satisfied with the evidence of Mr. Walshaw, to have this man called. • •

Alfred Walshaw deposed that he had held the license of th'e Manakau Hotel for 20 months. About the 10th of the month in question he had agreed to sell to Mr. Capon. All that Sunday he had been stocktaking with Mr. Capon. About 9 p.m v he locked up and when going to bed a,'tew minutes later a knock came to the door. He opened it and three men came in. He had noticed mud on the coat of one of these men and on questioning them, they had said that he had been riding a cow. They were quarelsome and noisy and looked as if they were recovering from a hard drinking bout, They had asked for drinks but he refused and they had then asked, for cigarettes which he supplied. It was absolutely incorrect that they had received drink in the hotel. It was also incorrect that he had introduced them to Mr. Capon. They were not in a fit condition to receive drink even !i'f it twei'e VpermisaliUle.. JThey were;, quarrelsome and one of them grabbed the packet of cigarettes from his hand when he offered th'em. He had never heard a suggestion before this morning that the boys had been introduced to Mr. Capon. Only three came in, but ho heard others talking outside in,, a car. Mr. Capon was in a position of trust in respect of the sale ,of liquor pending transfer pf tthe license.

To Senior-Sergeant Fraser: He had not brought Mr. Capon as he had no idea that he was necessary.

Serior-Sergeant Fxaser: Now I am going to put the constables in the box and they will swear that they told you that Mr. Capon was present. Did they not also tell you that the boys had said that Mr. Capon was present when the drink was sold. Witness: No. Inspector: Now it is a fact that on this night Mr. Capon had just taken over. "Was tho fact known before this that you had sold outf

Witness: Not as far as I know. I

do not remember telling anybody that I had sold out.

Senior-Sergeant Fraser: Then how story. If they did not know anything about it, it seems strange, to say the least of it, that on the morning, following the occurrence: they should have had a story so pat and that there should not appear any discrepancies in the statement made by 7 either ; of the witnesses. How do you account for that? Witness: I do not know.

•Senioi'-Sergeanti Fraser: No! nor' does anybody else. The whole story is nothing more nor less than a lie. Mr. McGrath: I protest against this your Worship. The Inspector has no right to insult the witness. He is there to cross-examine only and I enter a strong protest against such language. , i Continuing witness stated he had not told the police that the boys were quarrelsome, because it had not occurred to him to do so. He had sold cigarettes and admitted that he had done wrong in this, but he would not sell drink to anyone in such a condition as the boys were in. He had taken the money for the cigarettes although his original intention was to give them to the party in l ord'er to get them out of the house. When ho offered the packet, however, one of the youths had grabbed it out of his hand and passed the money to him. He was entitled to take this money and also that for drinks solid unljil such time as the transfer of license was completed, as the hotel,, was really in a position of trust, during this period. John Ba,grie, police constable, Levin, gave evidence that lie and Constable 'Greggan had interviewfed .'the previous . witness and had informed him that it was alleged that he supplied the boys with liquor. This the defendant had denied and wh'en he heard from Mr. Walshaw that he had sold out, he had asked him if Mr. Capon was present at the time. He had not told Mr. Walshaw that the boys had said he was present. At this stage Mr. ; McGrath, asked that the Court be adjourned so that Mr. Capon should be called, or else the case dismissed.

The Bench: I am certainly not satisfied to dismiss the case. Mr. McGrath: Then I would ask that he be called and the case be adjourned if necessary. Inspector: I object to a adjournment.

iMjr. McGrath: This witness's evidence is indispensable to the case and if it could be- adjourned until — _ Inspector: I protest against this — M 4. McGrath: I wish (you woulft not interrupt me. If you have anything to say you can speak when I have finished.

The case was adjourned to allow of the witness being brought from Manakau.

On the case being resumed Frank JEdward Capon |exam,ined -"by thej Bench, remembered being present in the Manakau Hotel on the date in question. He and Mr. Walshaw had taken stock that day. After finishing they .had spent the evening upstairs. Between 9 and 9.30 he had gone down to the kitchen.

The Bench: Now I want you to be careful in what you say. Statements have been made by three young men that on the evening in question you were introduced to them as the licensee. Do you remember being introduced to these boys. Witness: I cannot remember —

The Bench: I do not ask you if you can remember. I ask you were you or were you not introduced to these ,young men on that evening. This is a serious case; there is deliberate perjury on one side or the other. Were you introduced to these boys? Witness: No. The Bench: I think this is a case which should be fullv investigated by the police. There had been perjury—deliberate perjury on one side or the other and it should be cleared up.

jSenior-iSerjiefdant Prttsetf:: f Vrtttftie agree your Honour. Mr. McGrath: I also agree Sir. It is a case of the word of two sober men against three who were drunk. The Bench: I do not want any comment, Mr. McGrath. , There were only two drunk and I am more inclined to believe the boys than I am the men. I do not believe that the boys had time-to fabricate the story they told the police, on the day after the trouble. Walshaw will be convicted on both charges and a fine of £lO imposed in each case with costs 7s. Leave to appeal was granted. _ ,