ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 June 1917, Page 6

ON LICENSED PREMISES.

DURING 'PROHIBITED HOURS. St the Sfew Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, Jirnest William Hine was charged wui having on Sunday, May 27, been tound on the premises of the Terminus otel, contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Act. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney conducted the prosecution, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the defendant. Joseph Dosenbach, tinsmith, living in '™ w , Pty mou th, gave evidence to the effect that he was in the Terminus Hotei on tne Sunday in question, and saw the defendant in one of the rooms, not far away from the bar. Ihis was th© case for the prosecution. Mr. Johnstone said the defendant admitted that he was in the Terminus on the Saturday immediately preceding the Sunday in question and left a bag of oysters there. On the Sunday morning lie went to the hotel, foolishly," no doubt, to get the oysters. Knowing Mrs. Kidgley, he stopped for about half an hour •talking to her, and then went home. Counsel submitted that, if these? were the iacts., the defendant was not on the premises for an unlawful purpose, and, counsel contended, the information should be dismissed.

The defendant gave evidence to the effect indicated by his counsel, adding that while in the hotel he had half a glass of beer with Mrs. Ridglev, and afterwards had another half a glass of beer in the kitchen from one of the staff. He had not paid for either of the drinks.

To Sub-Inspector Mcllveney: He left the oysters at the hotel on Saturday about a quarter- or half-past twelve, having left his employment in the Imperial Hotel at noon for the purpose of going 'home. It was not true that he had worked in 'the Imperial Hotel 011 the Saturday from D a.m. till after midnight. He .went into the Terminus Hotel because he met a soldier friend he had not seen for years, anil stopped talking to him till he had no time to take the oysters 'home, although he lived next do'or. He had dinner afj home on the Sunday. If his -wife had stated to the police that he had not had dinner at home she must have been mistaken. He had had something to eat in the Terminus, but not dinner.

His Worship sau[ he did not believe the defendant's statement that he had merely gone to the hotel to get the oysters; it would ;be very convenient if people could leave parcels at c.t hotel on a Saturday for the purpose ... evading the law. The defendant had admitted having drink on the premises. He would be convicted and fined 10s, with costs 9s. .ANOTHER CASE. Robert Park Cunningham was also charged with having been on the premises of the Terminus Hotel on the Sunday in question. Mr. Johnstone said the defendant admitted being on the licensed premises on the day alleged. The defendant was an employee of the Egmont Brewery, a bachelor, and had for some time lodged with Mr. Ridgley in the Terminus Hotel. On Sunday, May 27, he was at Moturoa, and on returning he met Mr. Ridgley outside the hotel. Mr. Ridgley asked him in to dinner; and he went. The defendant gave evidence in support of Mr. Johnstone's opening statement. In cross-examination by Stib-Tnspector Mcllveney, defendant stated that the boarding-house in which he lived was two blocks away from the hotel, in the direction of the breakwater. He returned to town' from the breakwater on the Sunday referred to, got out at the railway station, and was .walking back to his boarding-house when he met Mr. Ridgley. His Worship said if the defendant's statement were correct he had passed his boarding-house by two blocks and then gone back towards his lodgings. If it was true that Mr. Ridgley had asked him to dinner, Mr. Ridgley ought to have been in attendance to'give corroborative evidence. Defendant would be convicted and fined 10s, with costs 7s. SUNDAY BOOK-KEEPING. Charles Thomas Mills, similarly charged, admitted being on the premises as alleged, but stated he had been there for a lawful purpose. He had kept Mr. Ridgley's books since December, 151! i, and frequeiftly went to the hotel on Sundays to do this work, as that was practically, an off day for the licensee and he had time to attend to financial matters and explain any. problems connected with the books, accounts, stock, etc. His Worship said the defendant, if he wished, could have a short adjournment for the purpose of calling Mr. Ridgley as a witness. This course was agreed upon, and on the Court resuming S, Ridgley was called and stated that defendant had kept his books for over two years, helped him to ta'ke stock on Sundays, and assisted generally in the clerical work connected with the business. Defendant had been so employed in the hotel on Sunday, May 27, and had helped witness to take stock in the bar. To Sub-Inspector Mcllveney: The time it would take defendant to do the books depended on the condition the books were in. Witness supposed defendant did the books because he was otherwise busy during the week, and because on Sunday witness had more time to make any explanations that might be necessary. To his Worship: Defendant had come to the hotel on the Sunday in question for the special purpose of doing the books, and for no other purpose. His Worship said on the whole ho thought, on the evidence, ho would be justified in dismissing the case. He could not assume that the defendant, having gone to the hotel for a lawful purpose, had changed it into an unlawful purpose. Had he not jone there for the express purpose of doing the books the case might have been different, but the practice of going to hotels on Sundays to keep books was one that was liable to misconception. The case would be dismissed.