ANTI-SHOUTING CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1917, Page 7

ANTI-SHOUTING CASES.

BAR ATTENDANTS FIXED. At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Uurt yesterday, before .Mr. A, Crooke, b.M., Thomas McGrath pleaded not ginlty to a charge of having committed a breach of the War Regulations ;by permitting a man named Hugh Wilson to treat two other men named Henry Nicholson Scott and Stanley Bayly. Mr. J. H. Quilliam appeared for the defendant.

Hugh Wilson, laborer, gavo evidence that ho was in New Plymouth on June IS. He met Scott and Bayly on the morning of that day and the three of them went to the White Hart Hotel. The defendant was in the bar. They had drinks and witness paid, putting down a £1 note and securing 18s Od change. There was no other bar attendant present and the licensee wu not theie.

To Mr. Quilliam: The three of them went to other hotels and had drinks, each paying for his own. At the Criterion, however, witness gave the other men the money to pay, doing so at the back of the hotel. He was arrested the bamc day for drunkenness and next duy had to give an account of himself to the police. It was then that he told the police about what had taken place at the hotel.

Re-examined by Sub-Inspector Mdlvcney: Had no silver when ho went to the White Hart Hotel, but having changed a note there he had silver when he went to the other hotel.

Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgibbon stated that having reason to believe that Wilson had been robbed he made investigations, in course of which he saw McGrath, tho present defendant, who told him that Wilson had been in the hotel and had (been supplied with whisky on the day in question. This was all the evidence for the prosecution.

Thomas McGrath, the defendant, stated on oath that he was barman at the White Hart Hotel. He had been employed for about five years as a barman in several hotels, and also as wine waiter and in other capacities. (Teßtlmontes from previous employers put in). He remembered Wilson coming into the bar about 8.30 on the morning of June 18, and defendant was served with a drink. There were two other men in the bar, but. witness did not know whether they were with Wilson or not. Each was served with a drink, and each had a coin

In front of him, which defendant took as payment for his own drink. The man Wilson was brought into the hotel after-

wards, defendant thought it was on the afternoon of the same day by two men, who might have been constables. Wilson was suffering from the effects of drink, when some inquiries were made. To Sub-Inspector Mcllveney: The War Regulations were very strictly observed Rt the White Hart Hotel. He had seen Wilson on only one occasion after the morning when he had the drink. He rould not swear that it was on the next

morning, but thought it was the same afternoon. The constables and Wilson came a second time when he (McGrath) was in the cellar, but he did not see Wilson.

Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgibbon and Constable Wroblenski were called to Tebnt defendants statement as to WlJson being taken to the hotel on the afternoon of the 18th June. They statbd that Wilson had been locked up from the afternoon of that day until tl'.*> following afternoon, when he was taken by them to the hotel. Wilson was perfectly bober and on seeing him in the rpllar McGrath identified him as being the man who had been in the previous morning. The two constables were in the cellar at the time and heard McGrath identify Wilson. His Worship said there must be a conviction. Wilson could have no possible motive to trump up this charge against the barman by saying that he had paid for the drinks. As to the 6ide issue with regard to the man Wilson being taken by the police to the hotel, the barman had apparently taken it for granted that it was on the same day. The barman roust have said without consideration, because Wilson had been brought to him so that he might be identified aB the man who was there on the previous day. The defendant would be convicted and fined £5 with costs £1 3s 9d, the conviction disqualifying McGrath from being employed in any capacity in any hotel in the Dominion • for a period of six months.

BARMAID FINED. Rose Kelly, ibarmaid at the White Hart Hotel, was similarly charged, namely with permitting Wilson to treat the other two men on the morning of June 18 and pleaded not guilty. Mr. A. H. Quilliam appeared for the defendant.

Hugh Wilson gave evidence to the same effect as in the previous case with regard to going to the hotel with Scott and Bayly. While they were there MuGrath waß relieved in the bar by the barmaid. After she was on duty witness and the other two men had drinks. The barmaid put down the bottles and they helped themselves. Witness paid, putting down a two-shilling piece and received a sixpence change. Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgibbon stated that on going to the hotel on the l»th with Oon&taiblc Wroblenski jind Wilson, the defendant identified Wilson a? a man who had been in the bar with two others on the previous morning. This was the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. Quilliatn said this cbbc depended on the absolutely uncorroborated statement of the man Wilson, the constable's evidence only establishing the fact that Wilson had 'been in the (bar on June 18. The defendant was a young lady of experience and of the very highest char-acu-r, and would absolutely deny the statement of Wilson. If a conviction were to follow in this case then every barmaid and barman in the country would be at the mercy of any drunken waster that might come along. Rose Kelly, the defendant, stated that she had joined the staff of the White Hart Hotel about six months ago. When ahe joined she was aware of the War Regulations, and the licensee, Mr. Brookman, informed her that it rnewit instant dismissal if they were broken. When she wnt into the bar on the morning of June 18 Wilson and two other men were there. She had not seen any of them before. She served the three men with a drink each, reciving £1 from one man and a silver coin from each ot the other two. She gave the man who paid her the £1 note l«a 6d in change She was perfectly certain that each ot the three drinks had 'been paid for separately. It was a strict rule of hers not to permit "shouting" and in consequnce she'was very often insulted in the bar The police cama in next day with Wilson for identification purposes, and that was what had impressed on her miad the details of what had occurred.

To the Sub-Inspector: So far as her bar waa concerned, it was not true that the anti-shout-ing regulation was more honored in the breach than the observance, or that it was a rajre thing for a man to pay for his own drink. His Worship said there must be a, conviction in this case also. There wa* no reason whatever why Wilson should have sworn falsely. Mr. Quilli&m: There is no reason why Miss Kelly should have done so. His Worship: She is an interested party. Mr. Quilliam: Not sufficiently interested to commit perjury, sir. His Worship: There is no doubt one or the other has committed perjury. The defendant will be fined £5, with costs £1 3s Gd, LICENSEE ACQUITTED. Harold J. S. Brookman, licensee of the White Hart Hotel, was charged with permitting treating under the circumstances disclosed in the two previous cases, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. J. H. Quilliam appearing on his behalf. Hugh Wilson gave evidence to show that treating had itaken place, SubInspector Mcllveney then stating that he would leave it to the defendant to prove that he had taken reasonable precautions against the practice. The defendant, on oath, stated that he (had notices .posted in the bar, and had specially instructed the barman and barmaid against allowing the practice of treating. Personally he had refused to allow it, and as iMiss Kelly had stated, the consequence was usually insult. Ho had no personal knowledge whatever of what took place on the morning of June 18. The information was dismissed.