Second Edition. Thirsty Work.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 75, 28 November 1913, Page 6

Second Edition. Thirsty Work.

DRINKS AND DANCING. RAID ON MIDHIRST HOTEL. On October 17th a dance was held at Midhirst, and a police visit was paid to the Hotel. Certain men wore found on the premises and the circumstances were fully gone into at the Court this morning. WRONGLY ON PREMISES. William Hamblyn, Frederick Huse ami Gottlieb Kasper were fined 108, with 7s costs, for being on licensed premises while the premises were sup posed to be closed. THIRST and respectability. Mr Spence, who appeared for ah: : ,tho defendants, ioTd the Bench that -dance was proceeding at the time, • The S.M.: And we know that dancing is thirsty work. Mr' Spence, in respect of one dei fendant, impressed on the Bench the •fact that he was (as all the defend■ants were) a perfectly .espectabK man and a farmer m the district >_ The “S.M. said those charged hkt ■ defendants had to take the chance ol ‘ what people thought of them. A-' AW ABSENTEE. H Grey was charged with being or the premises, but he did not appear Sergeant McNeely said the summon; 'had not been served on defendant wh( • was 1 absent from the district, but hac ‘been left at his house. Mr Spend : said he was prepared to plead guilty. ’ The S. Mv; however, said he conic hot enter a: conviction in the circum stances.

THE LICENSEE CHARGED.

The licensee of the Mount Eg mont Hotel, James Cramond Parsons ■ tv as charged with exposing liquoi fo. said 'while the bar was supposed t( be closed. it Sergeant McNeely gave evidcnc. -that on-the might of October 17th In left iStratford in company with Con •stable McGowan and passed the Moun Egmont Hotel at about a 'quardr t( eleven.-They went a little past th •hotelj and then returned, the tiim then bbing ten minutes to eleven. 0; his return he found three men on th< hotel verandah. The front door wav standing wide open. He went inti the hotel with the constable and pro ceeded to the bar parlor. It was li up and the slide was open. The ba was lit' up with candles, and th licensee and his wife were in the bar There' were two meji at the slide— Hkmblyn and Huse. Each had •, "glass of liquor in front of him. Judg ■ ing by the smell, one drink whs beet and 1 the "other beer and lemonade. Ii "■the 'bar parlor'five other men wen “gitiiqg’i three of whom claimed to be bo'ardefs. One. who ssaid he intended

to sleep in the hotel that night, wa: somewhat' the whrse for liquor. Mr Spence claimed that the evi denco was not relevant. The S. M. said he could not agree with that view. He held that th< condition of the man had a bearing 01 the charge. . Sergeant McNeely, continuing, sai( the licensee’s wife said, on being ask ed, that Uhlenberg had bboked a bed for the night; but he could not tim the name in the hotel register. Tin licensee’s wife said the name was no in the book because Uhlenberg ha', only hooked the bed a short time pro viously. Witness taxed Uhlenberg with being drung. r 1 He replied: “i cannot; be very drunk, as I drove mj sister to the ; dance.” Uhlenberg lived on York Road, about two mile: away, " On being asked why the bar was open the licensee said: “I just told these two men (Hamhlyn ana Huso) that I wanted to get to bed and I shouted them a drink.” Th< two men said the licensee had treated them the drink. When witness first ! Called to file licensee, the lieen•see’s Wife said; “I told ymi, I told '■you 1” The men who were sitting in the ’parlor had no liquor before them. Fy Mr SpenceHe was fairly sprC that' there was more than one candle in the' bar. '' He could not swear tc the number, but was sure the bar was • ’well f lit • up. He was positive that Parsons said he had shouted for Hamblyn ; and Huse. Nothing was said about White and Reynolds, who were

present in the bar, having ordered the / drinks which were on the slide. They were boarders. Constable McGowan gave corroborative evidence. Hamblyn and Huse were standing right up against the ' liquor on the slide. When the witness said, in reply to the Sergeant, that in his opinion Uhlenberg was the worse for liquor, the'S.M., at the request of Mr Spence, formally noted his objection to the question. The Sergeant (to witness): Is there any doubt in your mind as to who the drinks were for? Witness; No. Mr Spence objected to the question. Me said the question of who the drinks belonged to would have to be decided by the Bench, whose duty it would be to.draw the necessary inference. The S.M. agreed that the question was not proper. in opening the defence Mr Spence eaid the points defendant would contest were that the drinks belonged ■*o Hamblyn and Huse and that the licensee’s remark about shouting referred to them. Reynolds, who was a hoarder at the time, had since left the

district. Mr Spence argued that the evidence would show that the slide was open for a legitimate purpose; and even though the bar was lighted with the whole of Stratford’s electric ■current and all the people in the world could see into the bar still no offence would be committed until it was possible to draw an irresistible inference that the slide was open for the purpose of an illegitimate sale. Defendant, in evidence, said that on the night in question a social was being held as a send-off to Mis Seabright. He closed the hotel at 10 o’clock, and after going round the house he proceeded to the bar to clean up. Between a quarter and half past ten he arid his wife were in the bar. There was a knock at one of the front windows. It turned out to be Seabright and Shotter, who came along to get hot water for the supper at the social. The slide was not opened until drinks were put down to the order of White, who called for two pony shandies. The slide had not boon open many seconds when the police came in. Sergeant McNeely said: “What game is this?” Witness; replied : “It is no game.” The Sergeant said; “What are these drinks doing here?” Witness said they were for White' and Reynolds, and he pointed them out. Being asked what the 'other men were doing in the bar witness said they had coral down to get witness to go to the social. Huse and Hamblyn were great friends of his. The police were in the house about ten minutes. Neither Huse nor Hamblyn asked for a drink. Witness diet not know they were in the house 1 until lie opened the slide to put down the drinks for White and Reynolds. Huse and Hamblyn were three yards from the slide.

By Sergeant McNeely: Huse and Hamblyn were in the room before the slide was opened'. When the Sergeant called to' witness he could not see into the bar parlor and ho could not, therefore, exactly say where the men were standing when the Sergeant first saw them. Witness could not say when Huse came in. ■ ,

The S.M.When you saw Huse and Hamblyn why didn’t you ask them to leave the premises? Witness: I should have done so, but they are,very close friends of mine. I thought I would not be long before going to. the social and Huse said he would wait for me.

Walter White, bootmaker, Midhii'st, gave evidence that he had been living at the hotel for some time. He called for drinks for himself and Reynolds, and a few seconds after the drinks were put on the slide the police came

By the Sergeant : • Witness did not hear the Sergeant nsk HnMnvhoMwT paid for the drinks. Tlie. Sergeant: Did you at any time, tell me tl;e drinks were yours?

Witness: There was no question-at the time about who the drinks belonged to. The Sergeant: You made no protest against me smelling your drink? You thought it quite- a proper thing for a policeman to go into a hotel and smell a man’s drink? Witness: I did not see anything wrong in the action.

: Mr Spence (to the Sergeant): is the-.res.ult of; the respect paid, ;t'd the police.

The Sbrgeant: I know all about the ■espect paid to the police.

Frederick Huse stated that he entered the hotel by the hack door. ■ Ho did not order a drink, and he did not have a drink. When the Sergeant came in he did not suggest to witness that the drinks on the slide were his. Later on the Sergeant spoke on the matter and witness said he was not a drinking man, though he would take a drink if it was offered to him.

By the Sergeant: Witness was in the

hotel for about half an hour. He was only in the bar parlor for about ten minutes. During, part of the time was speaking to Seabright in the passage. The licensee did not offer to treat witness and witness did not hear him offer to treat anybody else. Witness did not see the men in the room playing any game. This closed the case for the defence, and the S.M. said he would give his decision after luncheon. A PLEA OF “NOT GUILTY.” August Uhlenberg pleaded not guilty to being wrongly on the premises. He gave evidence that he had tea there. He brought his sister to the sociaj, proceeded on to Stratford, and returned to the hotel about 9.30 p.n. It was a dirty night and he decided to stay the night. He asked the licensee if he could have a room and was told he could. He did not worry about aJ'ing what number It was. Alter the police left the hotel witness went to bed in the hotel.

By the Sergeant: He had bad crinks n .Stratford during the evening.

The S.M. : Why did you stay at the hotel? Your home ts only two n.des away. 11

Defendant: I would have had to walk home in the rain.

The S.M. said the excuse had every appearance of being bona lido, and the charge would be dismissed. In passing, the S.M. said a list of all the excm.es ho had heard ;n similar cases wtidd make very entertaining • ending. One man had sworn that he had hooked a bed, but it came out t.'utt the p< lice had found him, fully dressed under a bed. in another case a man made the excuse for being in a hotel on Sunday that he had gone in to get change of< sixpence, he being on his way to church. PUBLICAN EXONERATED. i ■ ■ ''. 1 '■ ' At 2 o’clock the S.M. said he had gone through the evidence in the case against the licensee, and had found certain discrepancies and flat contradictions. White swore that the drinks had «been put on the slide just a few seconds before the police arrived. Had the time been longer i - ,mth' a J

* it would have provided a better test { of the question who the drinks were • put out lor. There was a good deal i of evidence to support the licensee s ! case, and if it were disbelieved it would mean that those giving evidence had committed perjury. Judging _ the manner in which the evidence had been given there was nothing to suggest that White’s version was not correct. '1 lie police, however, were quite justified in the action they had taken, in view of the state of affairs they found. The whole trouble was caused by the licensee allowing people to ho improperly on the promises. If such persons were not sent out oi the house at once, the licensee ran a considerable risk. In the present case two hoarders were supplied with drink, but, even then, if there had been evidence that drinking had been going on he (the S.M.) would have held the charge of exposure proved. If there had been such suspicious circumstances he would ho justified in discarding White’s evidence. There was nothing in the law to stop licensees serving liquor to boarders in the bar alter hours, but he thought such drinks should be served in some other.room. If such drinks were served in the bar in the presence of other people the licensee, ran the risk of being charged with exposing liquor for sale. The licensee in the present case was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There were a number of facts in his favor—that there were only two glasses of liquor, that there was no evidence of any others besides the boarders being supplied with liquor, and that those in the hotel were waiting about in connection with the dance then going on. The charge would he dismissed, and lie hoped the licensee would take the warning about having people improperly in the house. Charges of this nature had to be considered by the Licensing Committee, and the licensee might find that, because he allowed people to bo improperly on the premises, the Committe would not renew his license, holding him to be not fitted to have charge ok a licensed house.