INGLEWOOD S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 March 1919, Page 4

INGLEWOOD S.M. COURT.

Before Mr A. Crooke, S.M. There was no appearance yesterday of George Hobbs, farmer, Hawera, to a charge of driving a motor car after sunset without lights on the 3rd mst- Defendant was lined ill and costs 7s. J. Dryden, Wortley road, farmer, anil George Stimpson, Lepperton, farmer, both pleaded guilty to charges of being illegally on the premises of the Railway Hotel, at S 15 p.m. on 15th inst., and were each fined 10s and costs 7s. Mr Johnstone defended E- C. fleer, landlord of the Railway Hotel, on a charge of keeping open licensed premises after hours and allowing liquor to be consumed. A plea of not guilty was entered. Evidence was given by Constable Longbottom, J. Dryden, George Stimpson and Fred Grylls, barman. The latter admitted serving the drinks. He was employed on Wednesdays and tirdays to assist, and on the night iji question was given the keys of the bars to clean up. Besides assisting casually at the hotel he is a contractor, and'during the day Dryden called to sei* him about some gravel and Stimpson had occasion to call regarding a consignment of chaff. He was extremeh busy when they called and suggested they should see him in the evening. They had tea at the hotel and then saw Grylls, and at the conclusion of T.'ie business, as it was a cold drizzling night, Gryll* invited them to have a drink ?ikfore leaving for home. Mr Johnstons contended there was no charge to answer. Grylls had received certam instructions to clean up the bar, and if he wilfully broke a law it did not imply carelessness, negligence or connivance on the part of defendant, who. as a matter of fact, was asleep at the lime the offence was committed, The circumstances were beyond suspicion, and the witnesses had given their evidence freely and frankly. The men had called to do business with a man who was engage,! at the hotel and had been treated as a friend-

The S.M. said the men should have loft the premises as soon as the business was completed. Mr Johnstone admitted that that wa~ tlie wiser plan.

Mr Crooke held that a publican sTiouM !:now what hi' employee was dftin?Mr Johnstone said that -Irylls' action wns without the consent or authority of defendant. He could not see how defendant could be held liable for an unlawful action of the temporary barman. The keys were given for the purpose or cleaning up. Tf a man went nut. of his wav to take his master's drink to give it awav it should not be ■placed agnrnst the master. The facts submitted did not support the conclusion tliat there was any connivance or negligence. Titers was a great, distinction between t'npowers of a manager and that of a mau given kevs to clean up the bur. T.eeal argument and many cases of a similar "attire were quoted by Mr Johnstone, after which defendant went into the box and gave evidence similar to that outlined by the previous witnesses. The SM. convicted defendant, and also inflicted a fine of £2, with costs 13s. .ludtjnient in default was (riven for plnint,in'= in the following ecses: K Ritchie v. J. W. Harding, claim, £lO, with r-rv-.f.s £1 13s fid: B. dough v. A. 0 Wilmhnrst. £i 17s fid. costs 10=; =nme v. Herbert Care. 1.".s fid. m=ts 'Os: A"X Frinklin v. A C Wilmlinrct. £2 2s 3d. costs ]os : F. Hirst v. J. Hppkinson. £1 Is fid. cn-ts ."is: D. J. Martin v. A. Wilmhnrst. £l4 .ts -Id. costs £1 !0s fid. Tn tV jiid.Tnont summons case. ,). Sutherland v. W. L. Carey, claim £3O 0s <!d, there wa". no appearance of defendant, who wa n - ordered to pay amount forthwith, in default 21 days in New Plymouth gaol.