SPITE AGAINST A PUBLICAN

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 27, 25 February 1909, Page 2

SPITE AGAINST A PUBLICAN

CONVICTION UPSET ON APPEAL. By Telegiuuh.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. A conviction recorded last month by Mr. 11. W. Dyer, S.M., against Harriotts Dingle, licensee of the Railway Hotel, Drury, on a charge of Sunday trading, formed the subject of an uppcil under the Justices of the Peace Act. 1008, before Mr. Justice Edwards at the Supreme Court to-day. The Crown Solicitor (Hon. J. A. Tole, K. 0.) detailed the circumstances which led up to the prosecution, and resulted in a conviction and ehtlorsement of the license in the lower Court. He said tint a farmer named Henry Toomaii visited the hotel on the evening of Sunday, November 29, in search of his brother, who was boarding there. On arrival, he entered a private room in which were his brother and another boarder. Drinks were called for, but the landlady demurred at serving Henry Toonian, re-

marking that the other two could have J refreshments, as they were boarders. ' After some persuasion, however, slcj brougiht in drinks for all three, which were paid for, and several rounds were consumed during the evening. Henry

Tooma'n gave evidence which bore out these facts, and he further stated that his action in informing the police of what had occurred was prompted by high words which had ensued between himself and Mrs. Dingle. The appellant characterised the previous witness' evidence concerning the sale of drink on the Sunday in question as a tissue "f falsehoods," and stated that spite had caused him to act as informant to the police. Alexander Patterson, a drover, deposed that he was in the hotel on the eveuing in question but did not witness | the sale of any drink. His Honor remarked that the evidence of the witness Tooman was characterised by i-.itenso spite against Mrs. Dingle, and there was not the slightest doubt that this had given rise to the prosecution. He was quite sure any jury who heard the evidence would) have desired to go no further. The case would have required to be a very strong one indeed to allow it to affect the value of the property concerned-, a-nd he had lio hesitation in allowing the appeal.