PUBLICAN AND POLICE

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4085, 9 April 1892, Page 2

PUBLICAN AND POLICE

An Important Case. Tho Information, DismlssoA. FBIDAY. On tb Court resuming at two o'clock, Constable Cashion was recalled and stated that he wae present at the meeting of the Licensing Benoh when the transfer of the license of tk Star Hotel was made iroui Emma Leonard to E. J. Searl, . This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Pownall, for the defence, submitted that the information must be dismissed, as there was absolutely nothing tb bliow that the defendant had any knowledge that a raffle was taking plaoe on his premises. It was not sufficient to show that Mr Searl was in or about the hotel at the time. Mr Beard understood that there was only one ground on which the application for dismissal was made. Mr Fownall said he had other points to raise, ■ Mr Beard maintained that this was against the usual praotice. Mr Pownall stated thai he could not raise the whole of the points now injustice to his client. Mr Beard consented to reply to the one point raised. He maintained that Mr Searl was aware that the raffle was taking pjace. This was clear froki the evidence of Constable Cashion!' 1 ' v,r After some argument the Court held that the admission made to the constable was sufficient to call for' a defencg. •'•-'■■• " Mr Pownall then urged that there was no'evidence to show that the raffle was ari'unlawful game, Judicial notice of the Act could not be taken by the pencil, and nothing had come out 1 in' the ovideniJefo sjjqw that i raffle was 'unlawful,'' He' furtnor submitted thai the defendant was not h.oensoeof'tliptar'Hofel when the al» le'g'ed'offence took plape,''Tbelipense may have lapseo 1 a day aftpr it was granted. He alaourged that theioformsr ationwasbadasneoffenoewasoharged. It was not stated for what game the dice were thrown, . Mr Beard replied at some length. IJe inajntaiogd (,)jat ipder'tbe Earning and \Lotterijb Apt "the/ throwing of dii}e was' unlawful, ,'tt "ha j been clearly' proved that Mr Searl was ljppep of the Star Hoto), A license was good for twelve, mopths'after it bad been issued.. Ho held that the jfjenpli j&jioiaj notice of facts 'made wwj}p. argpept. The Court then adjourned for half an hour to consider the points raised. On resuming, Colonel Boberts intimated that the points raised by Mr Pownall had been carefully con- ! sidered, and the Court had decided to disallow them,' . . ''' Mr Port nail said he would show by; eyftjenjj'nhat 'tbd Mefenijahp.knew j nothing otthe ra|ei' ; He would also submit that under the Act the offence' waß. not committed: in r premise!)!' The Star Hotel was only licensed up till ten o'olook in thej

evening. :i decision on this point bad recently been given at tbe ' Thames. ; ; ; : ~:r;< a ; Frederick J. Godfrey, special artist ° and correspondent to the New Zes* land Graphic deposed that be bad d organised the raffle on March 19th. ( The pictures and gun raffled were bis ' property. Mr Searl had nothing to ]l do with the raffle, and to witness' c knowledge was not in the room, ( After the raffle Mr Bearl said witness had no right to have it without his , permission. ' By Mr Beard: He was not aware J of the provisions of the Gaming and •] Lotteries Act, otherwise be, might i not have organised the raffle, The gun belonged to one Purviss, who was in the hospital, and was given to wit- j ness to dispose of. It was raffled for j £B, and the money was handed by , him to Purviss. He got some of the names for the raffle before ton o'clock, • The defendant was not present in the ' room when the raffle was being con- ! ducted to the knowledge of witness. There were about thirty persons j in the room, which might "have been ' twelve feet square, About twenty- i live persons were in the raffle for the i pictures, the proceeds of which were taken by witness. He saw Constable Cashion near the hotel on the night of the 19th, and saw Mr Searl speak* ing to him, but would not say what conversation took place. Edward J. Bearl, the defendant, produced the license of the Star Hotel. He knew nothing of the raffle till it was all over, Constable Cashion did uot go to the door of the Hotel. Witness heard about the raffle, and calling Godfrey out of the room spoke to him about it. Witness was away from the Hotel about eleven o'clock on tho night of the 1 raffle, returning at ten minutes past eleven. Cross examined by Mr Beard: Witness-would swear he did not go past the door of the room in which | the raffle was held.. This wa3 the case for the defenoo, The Court reserved its decision till ten o'clock on tho following morn- } >ng. | SATURDAY. 1 Colonel Roberts gave the following j judgment at ten o'clock this munis ins:—The Court is of opinion that . there is no evidence lhat the defendant had actual .knowledge that an 1 unlawful game was taking place, but consider that he ought to have known the fact. Whether tbe defendant purposely abstained from knowing 1 is too doubtful and questionable for p the Court to oonviot upon. The case r is therefore dismissed. 5 Mr Beard gave formal notice of e appeal, , Mr Pownall applied for oosts or . the defendant. Mr Beard stated that it was not 3 usual to allow oosts againstthe polio e The Bench refused to allow costs.