THE RIGHTS OF GUESTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 November 1918, Page 6

THE RIGHTS OF GUESTS.

MIDHIRST HOTEL CASES, A number of licensing case?, in which aroao the question of the rights of a licensee of an hotel to treat guests, were heard before Mr. A. C'rooke, S.M., at Stratford on Friday, when Mrs. C. Enright (Mr. Coleman) was charged, on eight counts, with breaches of the Licensing Act, on Oct. sth, by soiling liquor, keeping open for the sale of liquor, exposing liquor for sale and allowing liquor to be consumed when the bar should be closed. A. Hignett, A. Goble, and P. Phelan, for whom Air. Stanford appeared, were charged with being illegally on licensed premises. All pleaded not guilty, as did also 'I 1 .. A. Mason, who was not represented by counsel.

R. \V. McDonald, charged with a similar offence, pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s and costs 7s. Sergeant Dale, who prosecuted, deposed that ho visited t'iie Mt. Egmont Hotel at 9.15 p.iti. on Oct. sth, in company with Constables Tizzard and Robertson. He found the front 'ir door closed and the front ;;r; s. trance open. He sent Constable uwiertson to the back and, with Constable Tizzard, he entered by the private entrance, where he met Barlow, who said he was a lodger, a statement he 'had no reason to doubt. In a sitting Toom he saw McDonald and Mason, who were peering under a slide and talking to some one in the bar. In another room adjoining the bar, the slide waa fully up. The licensee's daughter was in the bar with a small kerosene lamp. On the shelf of the slide was a whisky bottle and an empty glass. In t'he room were Paddy Phelan, A. Hignett and A. Goble, who all said they were invited. Phelan said he had one shandy with Miss Enright. Hignett said he had a few pony shandy-gaffs, but did not pay for them himself, and Goble said he 'had a shandy which he paid for himself. Witness then asked to see the licensee (Mrs. Enright) who stated that the men were only a few guests she had invited, adding that 6|lie told "Kate" it did not matter who cornea to-night, as they are giving Barlow a send-off, and they can have something if they come. He said to Mrs. Enright: "Do you go out and invite the public to your bar!" She replied: "I did not invite them, Sergeant. I did not say that I invited them to the farewell. The farewell was to be held in the hall. I told my daughter that she could give any men that came to the farewell a drink if they came in." Witness remarked that the daughter evidently knew it waa wrong, and defendant replied: "I suppose it was wrong; she should not 'iiave been there. The whole place was lit up, and there was no attempt at closing the place a? it should be closed, save that the front door was closed. To. Mr. Coleman: Constable Tizzard noted the conversation at the time. There were a good many people in Midhirst that night for the farewell to Hignett and Barlow. He knew nothing definite about any farewell arrangements, but understood that afterward* functions were held at other places besides the town hall. To Mr. Stanford: The small kerosene lamp was in the bar. He may have asked Goble who paid for his drink, but did not do so with a view to anti-shout-ing prosecutions. He did not see any of the defendants leave Stratford and he was not specially chasing after those four men. He had afterwards heard a that the men had gone into the hotel'to ring up a doctor, but they never said that at the time. Constable Robertson depose:! that McDonald said he had come into the hotel to get a drink, but had not been supplied. Mason, Who appeared to bo intoxicated, said that he was a boarder and corroborated McDonald's remarks. Mason, who was now present in court, .pleaded not guilty. Constable Robertson, continuing his evidence, stated that Mason told him some time later that he was a boarder, but was too muddled at t)he time to say so. Witness here corroborated the Sergeant's evidence regarding the proceedings in the other room. To. Mr. Coleman: Previous to leaving Stratford he knew that the farewell was to be held. He saw no light in the bar and the slide was down. This would probably be five or six minutes after Sergeant Dale's entry. To Mr. Stanford: Did not know how long they had been in the hotel before the arrival of the police. Goble did not later deny that he had paid for his j drink, or say that he had said so because he thought that there would bej a charge of shouting laid. Constable Tizzard also gave evidence. Mr. Coleman submitted that the case was as outlined by police save in essential particulars, "lie men had not' gone to Midhirst for the specific purpose of having a drink, but to attend a farewell that was being given to Messrs A. Barlow and A. Hignett, -who had left for camp the next day, and were now in camp. On the way to Midhirst they wore asked by a lady to ring up the doctor, and they went to the hotel to do so. Barlow, who was a .boarder, went upstairs and Hignett his brother-in-law went to the telephone, leaving Goble, who was' a cousin to both, and owner of the- car, outside with Phelan. Miss Enright then asked them in to have a drink, and to contended that it was justifiable for the licensee to do so,, quoting; several' cases in support. The Magistrate said that it had been held that any one who went into an hotel after hours for the specific purpose -of having a drink was illegally on the premises ' Counsel heH that tliera wasi no 'premeditation in them going to the jhotel. they went there as an act of charity, and surely the Act never in'■tended that a. licensee should be treated as a pariah and not allowed" to enteritain her friends. He stated that 'f phelan had wanted drink he could have taken some with him from his own hotel. After further argument evidence: ih-j .support of the defence was given l by

' Catherine Enright, daughter- of thelicensee, who stated that, she had just put out the light in tlio sitting room, iwhich was full of smoke;, when a car .stopped and one- of its four occupants ,asked if 3i« could' use the phone.. All •were personal friends of witness' and her- mother. Barlow and Hignett came inside whilst Phelan- and Goblet remained outside. Witness invited themi in; to lave- a drink- and went and asked' lier mother-for-the keys;. Her- mother-«aid! -she* could give them a drink.. Three' of .the- mdi' accepted: the? invitation- and} 'had! just put down their glasses- when- thesergeaat came- in-.. The men did: not; offer | -to, pay for the drinks. Witness-, had' to ,tiike> 'the> men into the- bar- parlor- bel C auser the* other- available room was- occupied by- Mason and' McDonald., Bartow was-'*-boarder;. Hignett and: Goble; —iiiiVwA A r SMMfc-w*'

a publican in .Stratford. They had never been troubled by tiie police previously. To Mr. Stanford: Ilignett only had one shandy. To Sergeant Dale: Witness was not in charge of the bar that night, and had no instructions that she could serve these four men whom her mother expected. Her moti:er named the man. There was only one round, and that was free. Sergeant Dale: Coble has sworn that he paiil for his drink. To Sergeant Dale: Witness did not hear her mother say she did not know Phelan was in the house. Witness never had a lijiht in the bar. There was only one small light in the room. There was no whisky bottle on the slide, but there may have been a glass there. Patrick Phelan deposed that at the time of the alleged offence he was licensee of the Commercial Hotel in Stratford, and the trip to Midhirst was arranged the previous Thursday. They left for Midhirst later than arranged, i Goble driving the car. When near Mid-1 hirst a lady stopped them and asked if they would ring up Dr. Gordon, as her little child was They accordingly went to the hotel to ring up. Barlow and Hignett went inside. Miss Enright asked them in to have a drink and they went into the room and had a drink, when the sergeant came in, and, "I tell you we did get a fright." The Magistrate: Why To Mr. Stanford: Though he was a licensee of an hotel, ho did not know that it was wrong to accept the invitation to have a drink.

To Sergeant Dale: They were to go to the hail at 8 p.m. to the send-off, aud as far as ho was concerned, but for the telephone message he would not have gone to true hotel. He did not know there were other roorna that they could have gone into. Alfred Goble gave corroborative evidence of the visit up to tlie time of the arrival of the police. Witness, when interrogiv I by the police, was excited, and said that he t ,aid for the drink himself, thinking a charge of shouting would be laid. This was untrue, and he had later told Constable Robertson that he had made a mistake. To Sergeant Dale: It was only tlie telephone message that took them to the hotel. To the Magistrate: The constable was telling an untruth if lie denied that witness had said that ho made a mistake when he told the Sergeant he had paid for the drink, as he told the constable this on the station. Mr. Stanford said that he did not ,say witness was deliberately untruthful, and suggested that Constable Robertson be re-called to clear up the point. Constable Robertson considered that Goble was a thoroughly reliable man. He had met Goble three times on. the day in question and had discussed the case, but had no recollection of his making Ihe explanation mentioned. Mrs. Catherine Enright deposed that 'her daughter came to the kitchen and said that she wanted to give tlie men a drink, mentioning Barlow and Hignett. Witness knew all the men in the way o!' business, and her daughter was going to treat them. Usually they took their guests into the private sittingroom. and did not know the bar parlor would be used. Witness did not see -t'iie drinks served and knew nothing till tho sergeant called. She had had hotels for 27 years and this was the first time she had been inside a court. Her two daughters helped in tlie management of the hotel. Two of her four sons were at the front, one had returned, and another had just been killed. To Sergeant Dale: There were two sitting rooms and two tap rooms downstairs, and Mr. Barlow had told her that he might bring a friend or two with him. Witness had no arrangements to supply liquors or refreshments at the "shivoo," but she did supply some. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, said that he had to consider whether the liquor was given or sold, and save for the evidence of Goble, who afterwards stated that his statement re paying for the drink was untrue, all the evidence tended to show that the drinks were the gift of the licensee. The case was full of suspicion, but he did not like to convict on suspicion, and thought that he would be justified in dismissing the cases against the licensee. The position of tho guests was different, they had gone into the hotel for the sole purpose of having a drink, and tliey therefore came within the section and would be convicted and fined 10s and costs 7s.