ANTI-SHOUTING.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1916, Page 6

ANTI-SHOUTING.

BREACHES OF REGULATIONS. TWO NATIVES CONVICTED. •FINES OF '£3 AND £2 IMPOSED. The first charges of breaches of the Anti-Shouting Regulations heard in New Plymouth were taken before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when two natives were convicted and fined. The first defendant was Matene Riiharuin (Mr. D. Hutchen), who was charged with offering to treat another man named Waitere at the White Hart Hotel on October 7. Sub-Inspector Fouhy prosecuted. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Bowden gave evidence that, on October 7, shortly after fl o'clock, witness and Constable Kangliton approached the White Hart Hotel and saw the defendant and another man named Waitere enter the hotel together. When the police entered the two men were standing at the counter, each with a glass or liquor before him. Witness saw Matene produce a shilling and place it on tlie counter. When asked what the shilling was for, defendant said it was for the payment of the two drinks. To Counsel: Both men were standing at the bar for some time. Martene and his companion were together all the time. Constable Naughton said that the manner in which defendant put the shilling on the counter indicated that he wanted to hide his movement. The sergeant and witness were in plain clothes, and, in reply to the sergeant's question defendant said the shilling was in payment for the two drinks. Frederick Bradley, barman at the White Hart Hotel, deposed that on the occasion in question defendant and a companion entered the bar. One called for beer, and the other for shandy. Witness put the drinks as ordered before the two men, and moved away to another part of the bar. Witness saw no money proffered. Sergeant Bowden then entered, and asked who had paid. foT the drinks. Witness replied, "No one yet!" The sergeant, pointing to a coin on the : counter, -asked, "What is this shilling for?" Witness replied that he had not seen it. Martene, in reply to vhe sergeant, said, "I am paying for the drink." Witness took it that defendant meant ha was paying for his own drink only. To Counsel: Each man ordered his own drink. Supper was on at the time, and Waitere went over to the refreshment table immediately after ordering his liquor. Re-examined: Each man paid for his own drink after the sergeant had interviewed the men. Mr. Hutchen submitted there was no ease to answer. There was nothing in the. regulations demanding that a man should put down the exact price of a drink. Mr. Crooke admitted that the whole case tinned on the question whether defendant said he would pay. fo.' the "drink" or "drinks." The defendant, Matene Raharu'ni, said he went into the hotel to have a drink on "his own. Waitere followed Inn. Witness ordered his own drink, and put- the shilling down to pay for that drink. The sergeant then came in, and asked wit- | ncss if the shilling on the counter was his. Witness replied, "Yes; I am waiting for sixpence change." To Counsel: The sergeant took the shilling, and lias not returned it yet. (Laughter.) In reply to the Sub-Inspector, witness said he spoke to Waitere during the day on the date in question. The Magistrate said he was satisfied ( from the evidence of the police, an J the manner in which defendant had g'veu his evidence, that an offence had bc-m committed. Sub-Inspector Fouhy asked that, in view of the difficulty of detecting breaches of the Anti-Shouting Regulations, a substantial penalty be imposed. Mr. Crooke imposed a fine of £.l. Costs amounted to 21s. RECEIVING "TREATED" LIQUOR. A charge of receiving the liquor in question was preferred against Martene's companion, Waitere. He pleaded not guilty. Evidence similar to that given in the first case was heard. The defendant denied that Martene and he had entered the hotel as companions, and that Martene had intended to pay for his (Waitere's) drink. The Magistrate said there was no doubt the two men entered the hotel together. He questioned whether the man who had received the drink was as bad as the man who had paid for it. The defendant in this ease was convicted and fined £2, and was ordered to .pay 21s costs.