THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 14 June 1913, Page 5

THE LICENSING ACT.

TWO BEACHfS IX MASTERTON. FINES OP £3 IMPOSED. At the Magistrate's Ooort i» Mast?rton yesterday, before Mr L. 0. Reid, S.M., Mary White, of Feilding, and late cook at the Empire Hotel, Masterton, was charge] 'with keeping liquor fw sale in the >w-liceiise diMtrict of Masterton. Sergeant Millar remductod tho case for the Police, and Mr S. -J. Moran appeared for defendant. Sergeant Miliar staUnl tbut on May 18th in company with. Constable Ferguson, he .vent to the i&inpir.* Hotel, and saw Mrs "White in. the kitchen. He asked her if she hadgot some beer during the previous week. She admitted that she had. and when asked what became of it said most of it had been consumed. Witness stated that as she obtained four dozen on the 13th and it had been nearly all consumed he suspected that it was being kept for sale. He said if she could not account for it she wa« liable to prosecution. She said that the day after she got it was sale day amd a number of young "squattors" were at the house and drank over a dozen ot the beer. She thought that, if she supplied these men with beer it would bring them to tbe house for meals. If she brought trade to the house her mistress had agreed to i|aise bar wages and obtain an assistant for the kitchen". She said she could drink two bottles a day herself and do her work. She gave, several bottles to Mrs St. Leger and also to "Dolly" Reid. He could hot find the. empty bottles.- /but Mrs "White's son came round to ;the police about two hours afterwards and. said he had the "empties." J \ To; Mr Moran: -Mrs "White may have been joking when she jexplained why she got th> beer and how she disposed of it, but he did not take it as a joke. Constable Ferguson stated that' Mrs White's son came round to the police station about two and a half hours after the visit of the police to the Empire /Hotel, and said he had the empty bottles. To Mr Moran: He would, not swear that it was two hours after the visit but it was more than an hour. This concluded the ca.se for the prosecution and Sergeant Miller said it rested with defendant to prove that the liquor was not kept for sale.

Mary White, defendant, stated that at the time of ordering the four dozen of beer she had no immediate intention of leaving O'Halloran's employ. On the Sunday following the arrival of the beer witness told Mr St.iLeger, manager for Mr O'Halloran, that the Work was too hard for her and she gave him notice stating that she would stay a few days over the week until he could fill the position. On the day the beer arrived witness and friends consumed three bottles of the beer. On the following day severaj others consumed eight or nine bottles. Witness got the ale herself out of her room. No .payment ■ was! made for the liquor. She wanted to get rid of the beer owing to tho fact that she intended to leave. On Thursday she went for a drive and told "Dolly" Eeid that if he minded the kitchen he cculd.have aglasWfobeer. When she returned Rein appeared to bo under the influence of liquor, but he could not tell how much he had taken. Later on he said he took seven bottles.. Another man and the proproprietor also had ome of the beer. After the police had left the hotel witness said to her son that it was .a pity he had dispos?d of the empty as the sergeant had .been, round making.inquiries. He.said he ,bad not disposed.,of them, and she told ,him to run round, to the police wjthJbe ; |>ottles, w ,Thiß„. < "qnly a.fewi".mintite§3ltei: the por.ee had left the house. She received no payment whatever for any of the liquor: To Sergeant iMiller: She was married, and her husband was paying a pound a w?ek towards her -maintenance. She was not sure where the beer camo from. 'She sent an order for it. and understood it was com.-' \ing-. from Carterton. She. did- not know when speaking to th-3 sergeant that a charge was to be brought .against her, and she was when she •explained matters, to hum. The evidence of John R. Cole, which was previously taken, wa-s read. He said .he had- had. some beer from Mrs White. He offered to pay for it, but she refused to accept payment.

.Rupert Wm. St. Lep?v M manager of the Empire Boarding-house, said a raso of "Tui" beer came for Mrs White about a month ago. She had given him notice on the previous Sunday of her intention to leave. When* tlte liquor arrived the case was opened, and four, or five bottles were consumed by those present, himself among the number. Some friends consumed some of the liquor on the Wednesday following its arrival. .Judging "by the empties ten or a dozen bottles were drunk. He saw no money pass. H« thought Mrs White.,wjw liberal with the beer, but she told him that it was likely to attract trade to the house. He knew she was going' away, and had to get rid of the bo?r, as he did not want it there. In fact be was very annoyed that she had got it at all. His Worship: And . you showed your annoyance by helping her to drink it. Witness: In a place like Masterton I would not refuse, as it is hard °To Sergeant Miller: He had borrowed two bottles of beer from Mrs White to give a drink to a boarder, and he had replaced them with two of "Gold Top." . ' Nellie Albrecht, waitress at the S/m----pire Hotel, gave evidence as to the consumption of liquor on the Tuesday. Witney heard Mrs White give notice to St. Leger on the Sunday

before the arrival of the beer. Cross-examined: One of the* men asked her to have some beer, but she declined. Augustine'O'HaUoran deposed that he was present when the beer arrived. He had no beer on the Tuesday, but he had some on Wednesday, when there was a number of men drinking in the kitchen. He never saw any -noney pass, and he never paid for anv liquor. His Worship said he was not satisfied, with the evidence of the witnesses for the defence. Defendant had said her statements to the Sergeant were in fun; well, her statements made in the box might be also in fun. It was nonsense to say that nil, this liquor was being given away.

He did not intend to inflict a heavy penalty. Defendant had committed a breach of the Act, but he did not •believe she was the one responsible for the s n.le of the liquor. A fine of £5, with.costs 7s, wfcs reposed. A fortnight was allowed, in which'to pay' the money. ANOTHER CASE. " "Harry 'Edelsten iSraVcharged"with a breach'of section 146 of the Licensing Act in keeping hqubr for sate within a district. Sergeant Miller ' deposed that he had visited the house of tho defendant and was refused admission. He afterwards gained admission, and asked what had become of the - four dozen bear that had been received. THe defendant stated that two dozen had been consumed, and directed witness to a rack in which there were supposed to be another two dozen bottles. Witness had a look at these bottles, and suspected that the tinsel had been tampered with. 'The de fendant procured a cork screw and opened several bottles. Witness found that they were not filled with beer, but with water. Tl»© defendant said, "She must have been here," (referring to a certain woman). Witness wa s aware thali a wo-nan had been ki the habit, of visiting the house.

Under cross-exaisination by the defendant, Sergeant Miller stated that ho visited the house because he wa# informed that a certain young man had been there. Witness did not search, the house, to see if there was any further beer there. Witness suspected that there: had been drinking in defendsnt'a house. Constable Ferguson corroborated the evidence of Sergeant MiUer. The defendant, on oath, deposed that he had procured four dozen of beer on a Friday. ~On the Saturday he consumed nine ; bottles i and on Sunday another quantity. He was also assisted by' a young man and a woman. He left for Wellington, on the Monday. During his absence he suspected that the woman had gone into the house and played a "lark" on him by replacing the bottles in the case with bottles containing water. On Tuesday last he had found the balance of the liquor stowed away under 'a bed. There were eighteen bottles there still.. When he directed the Sergeant to the two dozen bottles, he, thought they were as he had left them. . The woTnan had a key to the house. Witness had not sold liquor in his life. Ho only procured a case of liquor every five or six weeks. He was a hard-working man. His Worship said the onus of proof rested on the defendant. He did not believe the story that defendant's house bad been visited during bi 9 absence and the bottles filled with water. The defendant would be fined £5 and 7s costs, in defanlt fourteen days' imprisonment. Fourteen days were allowed in which t< pay the fine.