CELEBRATING XMAS.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 September 1920, Page 3

CELEBRATING XMAS.

AFTER HOTEL HOURS. BREACH OF LICENSING LAW. Christmas festivities were recalled at the session.,of the New Plymouth Supreme Court last night, when an appeal •nade against a decision given in the lower Court over some breaches of the Licensing Act. The incident dated back to Christinas Eve last, when a constable visited the Kakaramea hotel and found a number of persons in the Tuar parlor and the licensee and an assistant in the bar. Prosecutions followed, and a conviction was recorded against the hotel-keeper and some of the men who were found on the. premises. The licensee, Alexander Q McDonnell, appealed from the decision given in this case at Patea by Mr. Wyvern •Wilson, S.M. Mr. P. O'Dea appeared for appellant, and Mr. H. R. Billing for respondent, Constable Armour. The facts as above were outlined by Mr. Billing, who stated lie understood the defence was that the only drinks served were to boarders, and that McDonnell waa not exposing liquor for sale. Constable Armour gavo evidence as to visiting the hotel. He said he gained entrance by the kitchen door. He found the bar parlor full of men. On the shelf leading into the bar were two glasses of liquor. The licensee (in his shirt sleeves) and a lady were in the bar and facing the men in the parlorHe asked the men what right they had there, and if any were boarders. Two were boarders, and he took the names of ten others. The only light was from a candle in the bar. In rej)ly to a question, the licensee said the two glasses of liquor were for the two boarders and he had several more of the others. The evidence of the licensee was that he went into the bar to get liquor for two of his boarders, and on turning round to put the glasses 011 the shelf he saw the constable in the parlor, and then he also noticed that a number of men had come in. His Honor "(Sir John Salmond) held that the appeal could not succeed, and the conviction must be affirmed. The fact of the men being found standing around in the bar parlor was in itself a strong Prima Facie case. He would ! have great difficulty in accepting the i explanation given by the licensee. It was hardly conceivable that the men could tramp in the back door, through the kitchen, and into the parlor without the licensee being aware of the fact. The appeal was dismissed, and the licensee was ordered to pay £5 5s costs.