LICENSING PROSECUTION. A PROHIBITED CUSTOMER. Auckland, May 23.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 371, 25 May 1889, Page 5

LICENSING PROSECUTION. A PROHIBITED CUSTOMER. Auckland, May 23.

Ohaklls J. Moi.loy, licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel, Onehunga, was charged before Mr u. S. Clendon, K.M., yesterday with a breach of the Licensing Act by supplying liquor to one John McMahon, a person against whom a prohibition order was made borne weeks ago on the application of his wife. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Baume appeared to watch the case in behali ol bho&e interested in the house besides the licensee, and Sergeant Gieene represented the police. Evidence was given by the Clerk of the Court, Mr Shanaghan, as to the making of the order in open Court, and by Constable Haslett as to the service of a copy of the order upon defendant. Harriet McMahon deposed to being the wife of John McMahon, against whom a prohibition order was made in that Court. About 9 o'clock on the night of the 6th ii v ist. , when witness was passing Molloy's hotel, she saw her husband in the billiard-room. Went around and waited at the end of the passage next Dr. Scott's to see if any drink would be taken to her husband. After some time her hutband came out to a window in the Queen-street passage opening into the bar, and stood near where Kerrebs was. Mr Molloy was behind the bai\ He and i Kerrebs were playincr with dice. McMahon was aiked what he would have, and he said " beer." Saw Mr Molloy go to the beer barrel under the counter and draw three glasses from the same ban el, two small ones and one large one. The bar was well lighted and witness was standing at the slide window in the passage next Dr. Scott's, which opens into the bar. The window was open, and Mr Molloy was only three or four feet from witness, but his back was to her, and consequently he did not see her. Saw the glasses passed to where her husband and Keirebs were. Went into the passage where they were and found McMahon drinking the Ion;? glas.s of beer, which he had nearly finished. There was a httle in the glass, and he laid it down on the ledge. Witness sei/.ed the glass in her hand, bub Mr Molloy took it trom her and would not let her examine it. She told him he had supplied McMahon with beer, bub he denied bhab he had, and said it was gingerale. She went and complained to Constable Haslett, who accompanied her to the hotel. By defendant : I am certain ib was beer you supplied my husband with, a3 I saw you draw three glasses out of the barrel. The ginger ale is Kept in bottles, and not in barrels. John McMahon was called and examined, and deposed to having a faint lecollection of being in the Prince Albert Hotel on one night when Mrs McMahon was there. Could nob say what drink he had. His memory was bad. It might have been ginger ale or beer. He had no recollection at all, as his memory was defective. Sydney Kerrebs was called for the defence, and deposed to being in Mr Molloy's hotel on the occasion referred to, and saw McMahon there. They had drinks, bub McMahon's drink was not taken irom the barrel that his beer was taken from. He was sure of that. He believed Met Mahon's drink was ginger ale. He heard |Mr Molloy refuse to give him beer. Sirs McMahon could not have seen what Mr Molloy was doing in the bar from where she was standing. In answer to the police, witness said he gob his pint of beer spilled. He declined to state what game he was playing or whab he was doing ab the bar, as bhab was his business. Charles J. Molioy deposed to recollecting Mrs McMahon coming to his house on the night in question. Her husband was there on that occasion, bub he supplied McMahon with no beer on that night. Whab he gave him was ginger ale. He had never supplied McMahon with drink since the order was mdde except ginger-ale or the like. Ginger-ale looked like beer in the glass. Mrs McMahon could nob have seen him do what she described, as she could nob have had a view of him on account of a folding door in the passage. Took the glass from Mrs McMahon because she was likely to have broken it, and nob because he (witness) was afraid to let her examine it. The bench considered that the evidence was not sufficiently conclusive for the prosecution, and dismissed the charge, observing to the defendent that he had better be cautious in the future, or that if he or any other licensee were convicted they would render themselves liable to a penalty of £10.

Father (the son using the family hammer). --John, don't swear thab way, especially ab your own awkwardness ! Give mo that hammer. (Two blows later.) i 111 1 jj i John— Oh, that's the way you want me to swear, is ib ?