LICENSING CASES DISMISSED.

Shannon News, 20 June 1924, Page 4

LICENSING CASES DISMISSED.

ALLEGED SALE ON SUNDAY. ] \t the Magistrate's Court Levin yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout,.&M V the police proceeded against Jabez Bebbington, license ol the Grand Hotel, Levin lor selling liquor during prohibited hours, and .further with exposing liquor for sale. i Ernest Henderson, barman, was ' charged with supplying, liquor, to a ! person at a time when he. was not I lawfully entitled to be supplied, and with exposing liquor for sale, and [ K T. Bond was charged with that t on June 4 he was found on licensed 1 premises at a time' when such premI ised were by law required to be clos-

er, t . , Mr L. Cohen (Wanganui) appeared for the defence and Constable Bagric conducted the case for the prosecution. Defendants pleaded not guiltv. The police stated that -flic prosecution was being brought under Sections 190, 19i and 205 of the Licensing Act 1908.' Giving evidence. Constable Bagrie said the facts of the case were verybrief At 5.30 in the evening of Sundav, April 6, he visited the hotel and i found Mr Bond drinking at the bar 1 with another man who claimed to he | a boarder, which fact, was not disI puted. On going along the passacre !he had heard voices in the bar. He had knocked at the door which was opened bv the barman. Ernest Henderson, and in the bar he had found Bond with a man named Connolly, who stated that, he was a boarder. On the bar were a bottle of port wine and one of liqueur whisky, also two glasses. He had asked Bond why he was there a,nd receivpd the answer that he thought he was entitled to drink with a. boarder. Henderson made no explanation. He had then gone to the office and saw the licensee there-.- He asked him if he knew who was in the bar. Mr Bebbington stated that there were two boarders, Connelly and Vaushan. ■

To Mr Cohen-: He had .found, the defendant. Bond in the public bar at the bar slide. Conn sol: There was in front of Mr Ronda, bottle of port wine and a. long nrrlcpfl nnttlfi of liqueur 'brandy. Witness: It was liqueur of some sort. T was- -not sure. Counsel: Did Mr Bond not tell you that he had-rome to the hotel to visit Mr Sellors, a boarder in the hotel. Witness: Yes. Counsel: Did he not tell you at the time that he had been on his way to visit Mr Sellor when met. Connolly whom lip knew and who suggested a drink. Witness: T have been told, that afterwards but not at, the time. Continuing witness stated that after visiting Ihp bar he had gone to the office and asked the ilicensee if he

knew who was in the -bar and on his stating thai it was Connolly and Vaughn n, he had takem him along to see who was there. Counsel, in presenting the case for the. defence,, stated that his case was that Mr Bond had gone to thp hotel for the purpose of visiting his_.friend, Mr Sellors. He had, on passing the office door, asked the licensee who was in the office—if Mr Sellors was in. Ho hart non.asked for a drink nt the time, which proved that he was not on the premises for that purpose, and had proceeded upstairs. On the way up lie had niot the -barman and Connollv who was a foreman bushnum and" who had remarked on the fact that he was not luoking well and had .suggested that a brandy and port wine would do hint I good. They had then proceeded to the' «bar lor Hie purpose of .getting -theft-rink, and were there when the police appeared. When,Mr Bebbington had left the bar, almost immediately before the visit- of the police, two boarders-had been' in the bar, Connolly and Vaughan. Un

leaving ho had tuld Henderson to give these iiieu a. 'drink and bring ihe key to ih'im. Henderson had 'been on his way to l>iiing the keys to the licensee when he met iMr Bond. The case was a. plain one. Mr Bond had <-"ome to the hotel to visit a bona fide boarder am] had not transgressed the law. having a perfect right, to do so. There was no question of criminal, intent in the ease. The barman was entitled to serve a "boarder-and in this cusp was fully of the opinion that he'was serving a boarder and 'his guest This was the right of the boarder and whilst it might 'bo desira/hle that the law, should be amended in this respect it made the present case a clear one.

Edwin Bond, sworn, gave evidence of .having, known Mr Sellors since he had come to Levin some months ago. On the date of the present information he had called at the Grand Hotel where Mr> Sellors was boarding, to enquire about his daughter who "was

seriously ill. He had enquired at the office if Mr Sellors was in and had then proceeded upstairs where Mr Sellors had <n p'fißvate sitting-room. There he had met with Henderson and Connollv and had asked Henderson whore Mr Sellors' sitting-room was. Thev had talked for a few moments and' Connolly, whom he had known for 13 months, had made the remark that he was not looking well and had suggested that a brandy and port wine would do him good. They had gone down into the bar parlour and he bad asked for al brandy iaind port wine. As a matter of fact, he had poured out .the port wine and had not yet put out the brandy when the police had come in. Mr Cohen-. Bad luck! (laughter). Proceeding, ' witness <said he had told the police that he had called to see Mr Sellors "and had on the way met Henderson and Connolly coming down to 'the "bar with them. He had said to the police that he had surely a rteht lo drink with a boarder. The constable had remarked that that Was lor (he Magistrate to say.

Cross-examined, witness stated he lived privatelv. On this occasion he hi.il ;'n«t heard that Mr Sellors' daughter wns sMioiwlv ill. and felt thatnt was his duty to call and ™<T»™ Jf tohorhoa.lth: He had himself (been ill

all night and was still leeiing seedy. It was not necessary ifiliat lie should go to the hotel, but lie felt that it was, '-■ his duty to call and enquire about Miss Sellors. He had known Mr Con- ~ uolly for same time but it was, doubtful if he tould have ■ -mentioned his name if he had been asked at the time. It was doubtful if Connelly would have asked him. to have a drink under ordinary circumstances but as lie was ill, he had kindly suggested it, a kindness which was" greatly appreciated. James Alexander Sellors gave evidence that he had resided in Levin for 5 months, during 4 of which he had boarded at ; the Grand -Hotel with his wife and daughter.. On the day--in question his daughter was serious- - ]y ill and Mr Bond had called to inquire for her. He had noticed that ■• he was looking ill at the time. To the Police: He had not known Mr Bond before coming to Levin, and this was the first time he had been visited by him. He had* met'Mr Bond at flhc Club and at other places soci- , ally. He was not on more friendly ■ terms with Mr Bond than with a number'of other men in the town, several of whom had, however, called to inquire about his daughter during Hip course of her illness.

.Taboz Bebbington stated that on the dav in question, ihe had been in the bar stocktaking with the haranan 'Henderson. When he was leaving Connolly and Vaughan had ./ come alon«r and asked for a drink, tie had given the keys to Henderson telling him. to serve them and return the keys to hmi. While he was in the ollice immediately uiterwards ■muk-. ing Lip his stock sheets Mr Bond hud ouino to the office--and inquired whether Mr Sellors was in. He had told him tihat he was, and Mr Bond had then gone upstairs. William Connolly gave evidence that on the day in question lie was staying at ohe Grand Hotel. He had worked in the district lor 16 months. On the day in question he was upstairs with the barman when he had met, Mr Bond who was a casual acquaintance. Henderson, liad remarked that Mr Bond was not looking well and he had .then suggested that a brandy and port wine would do him good. He had. been in the bar just previously with] Vuiigflum and had gone upstairs' where they had talked for awhile, Vaughan then leaving. They had immediately afterwards met Mr Bond and gone down to the bar again.

The Bench, in summing up, said flhat, on the evidence before him,' he would have to dismiss tlie charges. On the story told it would appear thai Bond had not met Henderson and Connolly downstairs but upstairs where he had a bona fide reason for being. As the law stood at present he could not do anything but dismiss the information, although it might he desirable that the law shou-ld be amended to put a boarder on the same, footing as other people in respect of drinks after hours. As the law vstood, however, ne could do nothing but "dismiss the cases.