LICENSING BREACH

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 20, 14 April 1927, Page 11

LICENSING BREACH

INTERESTING POINTS RAISED MAGISTRATE INCREDULOUS (From Ouy Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, To-day. A sequel to a week-end visit to Raglan was heard in the Hamilton Court this morning, when a dozen men were charged with being found on the licensed premises of the Royal Hotel after hours, not being lodgers. Together with them the licensee and his wife were charged with serving liquor on the premises after hours. Twentyseven charges were involved in the informations which arose out of a visit to Raglan on Sunday, February 20, by a party ol Cambridge men who en- j tered the licensed premises of the Royal Hotel, and were allegedly served with liquor. The first defendant who made his appearance was Philip Alfred Brady, who pleaded “ not guilty.” After evidence had been heard he was convicted and fined 10s, with 10s costs. An interesting point was raised by Mr. L. Tompkins, who appeared on behalf of Charles Brown, another defendant. who pleaded “ not guilty.” He stated that while en route to Raglan a discussion arose as to whether or not the party should stay overnight at Raglan, and the majority arrived at the hotel with that intention. They were served with liquor, and the question arose as to whether or not they were actually bona-fide travellers, and did not commit an offence, though they returned home without stopping at Raglan for the night. Counsel also raised the contention that some significance should be attached to the fact that defendants were not actually “ found ” in the premises, though they admitted they had been there. The inference was that defendants went to the hotel for a legitimate purpose, arranging for meals as bona-fide travellers. Defendant, Brown, testified to the discussion which occurred on the way out concerning the prospects of stopping overnight, which the majority agreed to do, and it was thought a few dissentients would offer no further objection; but they did, and the party | had dinner and tea at the hotel and i were shown to a room where they had ! drinks and, after discussion, decided ! not to stop overnight. Subsequently I they informed Mrs. Darnell of their j intention. i Similar evidence was given by Ken- ; neth Webb, but he stated a collection of one shilling each was made on the way to Raglan, being, he understood, for drinks. Florence Xorah Darnell, wife of the hotel licensee, related what had occurred when the party arrived and Brown arranged for meals and accommodation. after which he asked for liquor, which was provided. Afterwards Brown intimated that the party was not going to stay the night. Mr. F. W. Platts. S.M., said the defence for the most part was unreliable. Brown was fined 20s and 30s costs. The other cases are proceedi ing.