BARMAID’S LICENCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 278, 14 February 1928, Page 13

BARMAID’S LICENCE

WOMAN ACQUITTED rMARGE OF MAKING false *** STATEMENT . deliberated 15 minutes yesT*'^n e nioon before finding a Velardes' “ ft f euilty against Mane Louisa diet of not S r ped with making a false Bur f„ert in reference to a barmaids licence. taken before Mr. JusThe trl . al \, r Meredith prosecuted tics Re td r ' F _ tv. Hickson appeared for tii« aCCU h 3 sfee was that she made the The Honunder the Justices of the dcclaratio Peace i<Jence for the prosecuLengtny « when the accused tion ghe worked at certain hotels U*d ! ’ „ol to the knowledge of the it was ~e r name was crossed off licensee*- ' jn 191S _ and in March, itie resist application for a new I# smicate Explaining that she had lost , e rtincai. e . fire. Evidence was her old one- 1917 to 1920 t“ led ha d Teen working in a large drfta-ry establishment, city drapery accus ed-stated that In lost her certificate in a fire she true that she had worked I t was quit with an Auckland ior %v lo ftmi ' but during that period had yearly holidays, which she working at hotels in order “retainer licence. She might have t» .21. takes in her statements, but ;“y*w?re not made with intent to dece cmas- examined, witness said she had i „ her certificate on two occasions. time a friend of hers had * * [, into the tire, although she th 22/hat it was. Witness denied that K -ttStol” her certificate. Witness not remember the man who Mined her declaration form in 1917. she would not swear that signature to ,“ 8 declaration was hers. She was not ■ iv ire that she had made the declara'i,r Witness could not remember the Mmes of the hotels in which she worked while in Sydney. When asked where the certificate was burnt in ~ml. as stated in the declaration made last year, witness refused to tell, slating that if she told she would have an insurance company on her tracks. She had a daughter to keep and she would say nothing, as there had been enough trouble over the thing. Submitting that the confusion of dates as shown by the accused was a feminine failing, Mr. Dickson asked the Jury to remember that she was a woman with an hitherto unblemished character. It was pointed out by Mr. Meredith that the accused had made three <iift'e:l ent statements regarding her certificates.

Summing up. his Honour instructed the jury to take no notice of the accused’s sex. He pointed out that although she had come forward with other explanations when her former statements had been contradicted, no evidence had been called to support these explanations.