LIQUOR CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 July 1917, Page 6

LIQUOR CASES.

• <m — BREACHES OF THE LAW. • At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., sixteen informations for breaches of the Licensing Act and of the War Regulations were dealt with. ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATION. Hugh Nicholson Scott was charged with having, on June 18, in the White Hart Hotel, received intoxicating liquor in respect of which an offence had been "ommitted by Hugh "Wilson under the anti-shouting, provision of the War Regulations. Hugh Wilson deposed that on Monday, fJune IS, he was in New Plymouth, and met Scott shortly after 8 a.m., Scott and a man named Bayly. The three of them went to the W'hite Hart Hotel and went into one of the bars, where they each had some whisky. They were supplied by the barman. 'Witness paid for the drinks, changing a £1 note for the purpose. They had/two other rounds supplied by the barmaid, witness again paying. The other two men told witness they had no money. To defendant: Witness was sober when they went to the White Hart. Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgi'bbons said that on 'l9th June defendant made a statement to him to the effect that when Wilson gave a £1 note to the barman he received 19s Od in change and passed a sixpence to him (defendant) and a shilling to Bayly. The defendant stated on oath that .ie had not received any money from Wilson on the occasion in question. Wilson, was a .peculiar man when under the influence of liquor. As to the antishoutmg business, he knew it was an ollence, 'but it was done every day every five minutes; in fact he had seen members of the police force breaking the regulation.

To Sub-Inspector McTlveney: He certainly would not give the name of the policemen in question nor the name of the hotel in which it occurred. He (defendant) did not go with Wilson to the rocks, but left him at the Terminus Hotel about 11.30 a.m. It was not true that Wilson had paid for the three drinks at the White Hart. He might have said so to Fitzgibbons. but since then he had had time to think and to rememberxexactly what had happened. His Worship said the defendant would be convicted and the penalty fixed later. The defendant was then further charged with similar offences at the Criterion Hotel and the Terminus Hotel, the evidence only differing from that in the previous ease in so far as it was alleged that Wilson had given the other men a sixpence each outside the premises in order to pay for their drinks. His Worship said the defendant would be oonvicted on each information. He would hear the case against Bayly before fixing the penalties. Stanley Bayly, for whom Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared, was similarly charged, the three informations being taken together by consent. The defendant in his evidence stated that he had paid for bis own drinks at the three hotels., and so far as he knew the others had done the same. His Worship said Baylv would also be convicted, and each of the defendants would be fined £2 on each of the two charges, with costs £1 Ms against Scott and £1 3s against Bayly. SUPPLYING YOUTHS. Vernon Julian, Leslie Laurence, and Jack Mack Flannery pleaded guilty to charges of having at the Inglewood Hotel, Inglewood, on June 23, obtained' fiquor from Robert Brown and Arthur Kitto by falsely representing themselves to be over the age of 21 years. Robert Brolwn was, charged with having at the Inglewooil Hotel unlawfully supplied liquor to persons apparently under the age of 21 years, namely J Mack Flannery, Vernon Julian, and Leslie Laurence. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared on his behalf. Constable Longbottom stated that he visited the Inglewood Hotel about a quarter to ten o'clock on the 23rd June, when he saw the three youths standing at one of the bars. There was no barman present at that moment, but when witness was questioning the youths as to their ages, barman Brown appeared on the scene. Brown told witness that he had asked the youths as to their age, and each had told him that he was over 21 years. That, Brown said, was all that concerned him. The licensee was present when witness was talking to Brown. In reply vto witness the boys said they had been drinking "shandies." Julian said he did not know how old he was*, but did not think he was 21; Laurence said he was 10, and Flannery gave his age at 21. Tho ages of the boys actually were: Flannery 20J years, Julian 18, and Laurence 17. Mr. Johnstone said the facts were not denied, but he submitted that from the appearance of the defendants the liarman was justified in accepting their assertion that they were not under age. The only question was as to the apparent ages of the youhts. Robert Brown, tho defendant, gave evidence to the effect that when the boys asked for three medium shandies lie asked them their ages, and each said he was over i2il years. Witness asked because he was suspicious of their appearance, and because the licensee had warned him to be very careful not to serve youths under age. The regular baramn, Arthur Kitto, then came along, and he also served the boys with shandies after asking the same question and receiving the same reply. The licensee was not present. To Sub-Insjpector McTlveney: When the boys told him they were over 21 he thought that iwas good enough for him. His Worship said the barman had not satisfied him that he took proper precautions; he seemed to have been satisfied with their mere statements. The defendant would be convicted. Arthur Kitto, the barman, pleaded guilty to similar charges with regard to the same youths. Andrew Laing, the licensee of the hotel, was also charged with supplying two of tho boys, and on the advice of Mr. Johnstone pleaded guilty, although he claimed not to have known anything about what had occurred. Mr. Johnstone asked his Worship to note that Mr. Laing had specially warned the barman against serving toys under 21. His Worship entered convictions in all the cases. He fined each of the boys £1 on each of the tlwo charges against him, and the barman £1 each on each of the three charges. The licensee would be fined £1 on the first information, and <m tiw vecond would be ca&vioted with-

cmb would be 7s. ADJOURNED. _ The adjourned cases against E. Granville and J. R, Startup in connection with taking liquor into a prohibited area were further adjourned, the former sine die because the defendant had not been served, and tho latter by arrangement till the 19th inst. Victor Harold IMehrten was charged that between the 3rd and 6th June he did (d) unlawfully keep liquor, whisky, for sale in the prohibted area of Mokau; (2) with storing liquor for another person named W. H. Rodgers; and (3) stealing four bottles of whisky, the property of Eodgers.—The Sub-Inspector said he had agreed with Mr. Quilliam, who was acting for the defendant, but who was at present in Auckland adjournment till July 19, and the cases were' adjourned accordingly.