INGLEWOOD HOTEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 123, 11 October 1912, Page 7

INGLEWOOD HOTEL.

VISIT BY THE POLICE. CHARGES DISMISSED.

Several licensing cases were heard at the Inglewood Magistrate's Court yesterday, arising out of the discovery 'of two young men, whom the'licensee held were boarders, on the premises of the Inglewood Hotel after closing hours. George and Fred Nicholls were each separately charged that on August 17 they were found on licensed premises after hours. Both pleaded not guilty and were defended by Mr. A. H. Johnstone.

The case against Fred Nicholls was heard first.

Constable Fitzgibbon, gavo evidence that at 10.45 p.m. on Saturday, August 17, he saw the defendant come out of the back door of the Inglewood Hotel. Witness hailed him, asking him what he was doing. The reply was: "Oh, it is all right." Witness then reminded the defendant that he had warned him before, and asked him what he was doing with a bottle. The;defendant replied: "Oh, I must have something for the morning." He had made no excuse for being there. The defendant lived only about a quarter of a mile from the hotel.

To Mr. Johnstone: The defendant did hot says that he was a boarder at the hotel.

Addressing the Court, Mr. Johnstone said that defendant was a bona fide lodger at the hotel that night. He and his brother lived some distance out of town.

For the defence, counsel called George Nicholls, a brother of the defendant. He said he was farming about a mile out of Inglewood. He.came into the town for a fortnight to help in the firm's (Nicholls and Son's) bakehouse, owing to a shortage of hands. In company with Ills brother he boarded during that time fit de Launy's. On the night in question the de Launys' were away from Inglewood, and so about 9.30 he aid his brother went to Laing's Hotel and booked two beds. They slept at the hotel, and had breakfast there next morning, prior to driving some cattle into the country. Witness said he had often stayed at the hotel; If, asked the Magistrate, witness and his brother were going to sleep at the hotel for the night, why did they trouble about taking a bottle of beer with them.

Witness replied that he might wake up at 2 o'clock in the morning, and want something to send him to sleep again. Evidence was given by Newton Bird, a railwayman, as to having been in the bar at the Inglewood Hotel shortly before ten oh the night in question, when George Nicholls booked a bedroom for his brother and himself, from Misc Davidina Laing. Witness, who boarded at the hotel, remained there until the police came. May Laing, one of the daughters of tke licensee of the Inglewood Hotel, remembered Fred and George Nicholls having come into the bar about 9.30 on the Saturday night. She heard George Nicholls ask her sister for a room. The Nicholls were given room No. 3. Elizabeth Laing, another daughter of tke licensee of the hotel, gave corroborative Evidence, •

Traversing the facts of the ease, Mr. Johnstone applied for a dismissal on the. grounds that the evidence showed that there was no suggestion that the defendant was on the premises for an unlawful purpose. Summing up, the Magistrate (Mr. W. G. Kcnrick) said that the whole question was whether the defendants engaged the rooms in the ordinary way, with the intention to sleep there, or merely to avoid prosecution. The evidence showed that they had booked their beds about 9.30, and'had slept there. The Magistrate commented on the unsatisfactory, nature of soma of the evidence given by George Nicholls. The case

would be, dismissed. The Magistrate added that as the evidence would be the same, he was justified in also dismissing the case asainst Fred Nicholls.

CASE AGAIXST THE LICENSEE. Andrew Laing. the licensee of the hotel, was then charged with unlawfully exposing liquor for sale in the bar of his .hotel after 10 p.m. Ha was further charged with keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor after hours. The defendant, who was represented by Mr. A. 11. Johnstone, pleaded not guilty to both charges. On beihalf of the police, Senior-Sergt. Haddrell said the cases were alternative ones, a conviction in one meaning the dismissal of the otfter. The facts arose out of the same set of circumstances as those disclosed in the hearing of the first case. Describing hu visit to the hotel on the night in question, Constable Fitzgibbon said that he entered by the backdoor, and heard voices in the bar-room. He found that one 'of the doors leading to the bar was slightly There was no light in thevbar, nor were there anyone in there. There were three boarders and several persons connected with the hotel in the bar parlor.

To Mr. Johnstone: Xo one was drinking, and there were no glasses about. He got into the hotel by the back door, which did not open from the street. According to Mr. Johnstone there was no evidence to show that any liquor was exposed for sale, or that the premises were open for the sale of liquor. In.dismissing both cases, the -Magistrate said no doubt that had Fred. Nicholls explained the position to the constable on the night in question there would have been no court cases. TJndet the circumstances, however, the constable was quite justified in laying the charges.