HARD-UP BALL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 August 1939, Page 4

HARD-UP BALL

LIQUOR SOLD WITHOUT LICENSE. SEQUEL IN COURT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 11. A sequel to the “hard-up” ball held in the Town Hall on Wednesday, July 19, was the appearance of the president of the Auckland Commercial Travellers’ and Warehousemen’s Association, Phillip Colin Muir, in the Magistrate’s Court today. He pleaded guilty to a charge of selling liquor without a licence. The courtroom was crowded. Sub-Inspector Pender said the price for a double ticket was approximately 7s. A patron could purchase in the hall a saveloy, a pie, a hot dog, or other eatables for sixpence or a shilling, when the barman or steward would supply a glass of beer with the purchase. “We have evidence of a number of such sales,” said the sub-inspector. “The commercial travellers purchased the beer and served it out with small purchases. Defendant, as president of the association, was in charge of the organisation.” The sub-inspector added that for such an offence a penalty of £5O or one month’s imprisonment with hard labour was provided. Defendant had not been previously convicted.

Mr. A. K. North, who represented defendant, said the charge had arisen through gossip and wild rumour, all apparently baseless. It was apparent that somebody’s head had to be offered, and it was the president’s head. However, he did not sell the liquor himself. The commercial travellers organised the ball at the request of the Auckland Centennial Committee. They genuinely thought that, by giving away beer, they were not committing an offence. The success of the ball exceeded the wildest dreams, 3000 attending. The supper-room where the beer was dispensed was closed at midnight. Abuse had most unjustly fallen on the travellers.

The magistrate said the offence had almost been deliberately committed. “We all know that commercial travellers have assisted every good cause for years,” he added. “Their efforts have been most praiseworthy. However, I am concerned with a breach of the law that has been committed. They might not have realised that they were committing a breach of the law, but it was almost deliberately done. It is a pity that their efforts, which are approved by the public, should have been marred to the extent they were.”

Defendant was fined £l5 and costs 10s.