WAITARA HOTEL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 October 1917, Page 2

WAITARA HOTEL CASE.

APPLICATION TO CANCEL LICENSE. , NOT GRANTED BY COMMITTEE. A case of unusual interest, and probably the first of its kind under the new war regulations, was heard at Waitara yesterday afternoon, when the application of the police for the cancellation of the publican's license held bv Clias. G. White, of the Waitara. Hotel,'was considered by a special meeting of the Tail-" marunui Licensing Committee, composed of Messrs A. Crooke, S.M. (chairman). Geo. Smith, H. Langman, T. Buchanan, and A. Scholes. Sub-Inspector Hutton conducted the case for the police, Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the licensee, and Mr. J, H. Quilliam watched the proceedings on behalf of the head lessee. ! Sub-Inspector Hutton detailed the facts relating to the prosecution of the licensee in connection with the shouting cases on August 2, when a man named John Andrew Moore was robbed while asleep in an intoxicated condition. The police considered that the licensee was not: a fit person .to,,conduct * licenced house. If a servant of the licensee bad committed the offences, he would have been deprived of his position as an assistant in a bar for a term of six months or more, and there was no reason why the licensee himself should not be treated in a like manner. It must be assumed that if breaches of the law were made on that day they might have been made on any day. tho licensee was not a fit and proper person to be granted a license. No evidence was called in support of the case of the police. Mr. Johnstone contended that the cancellation of the license would mean a very serious loss to Mr. White. The application was made possible by the passing of the war regulations last year. The licensee had already been convicted and heavily penalised, and now it was proposed to take away his livelihood by depriving him of his license. Mr. White had held licenses in five hotels during the last six years, which meant that the police had five.times certified that he was a fit .person to hold a license. It was a different case from one where a man was shown to have consistently conducted his house in a loose manner. The whole of the offences were committed in the space of an hour or so. Each round of drinks meant a fresh charge for each man. The whole course of the law was changed by the war regulations, and the onus lay, not with the police to show that an offence had been committed, but with tho defendant to show that he w*as guilty of no offence. Mr. White was not in the bar that afternoon, and stated that he did not know that shouting was going on; he was told, that each man had paid for his own. Unfortunately, Moore was robbed, and the investigations had led to the several charges. Probably the men made out that they were drunker than they were, in order to make out that they knew nothing of the robbery. The whole of the charges arose out of the indiscretions of an hour or so, and there was nothing to suggest, that, the Bench would be justified in ordering the cancellation of the license. Sub-Inspector Hutton said it was imperative that the police should deal with breaches of the war regulations; they were framed for the welfare of the country. If treating was permitted on one occasion it was probably allowed generally. The licensee had at first denied the charge, hut pleaded guilty when the case was heard. Instead of stopping the shouting he had aided and abetted the offence. Mr. Johnstone said that Mr. White still denied the charge, but had pleaded guilty because the Weight of evidence was against him. The committee then retired to consider the case, and, on returning, the chairman stated that the application could not be granted. The cases were said to be isolated happenings of one day. The committee did not consider that the cancellation should be made in the public interest. The application would have been granted if previous evidence of misconduct had been forthcoming. It was hoped that the licensee would be extremely careful to comply with the law in future.