POLICE versus PUBLICAN.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4328, 27 January 1893, Page 3

POLICE versus PUBLICAN.

The Star Hotel Again, The thirty-second information brought by the police within the last threß years against the Star Hotel came before theR.M, Courtat Mnsterton this morning. Mr C, A. Pownall appeared for the defenee.and Sergeant McArdle prosecuted, the Bench being occupied by Colonel Roberts, R.M.

Theinformations laid against Julius O, Eastwood, tho present licensee, were for-selling liquor on Sunday last and for keouing open for the sale of liquor,

Mr Pownall asked that the two informations bo taken as one, to save time,

Sergeant MoArdle objected. The Clerk of the Licensing Bench gave evidence of the issue of a license to J. 0, Eastwood. All witnesses were ordered out of Court on the application of the police. Constable Thomas Stewart gave evidence that on Sucday Jan. 22nd, ho vifiiteil the Star Hotel by request. Entered by tho side door which was open. Walked straight to the bar, and there saw George Ellers puling down a glass having just finished a drink. The slide of the bar was open. Tho barmaid was in tho bar cleaning some glasses with a towel. After talking with the barmaid a few seconds, witness enquired for Eastwood, who oame out of the room off the bar. Mrs Eastwood waß not in the bur. Asked Ellers why bo was there, and be replied "Say nothing about it, Aftorwards Ellers said ho had just come from his home at Kuripuni, By Mr Pownall: I entered the side door, which was standing open. The front door was shut. I did not see any other door open. Ellers was by himself at tho bar window when I eaw him. When I visitod tho hotel Leoby was with me, I will deny that any person whs within three or four yardß of Ellers when I went in. I do not know what was in the gliisc which Ellers put down. • I did not tell tho bar-maid it would tnko more " lies" or " hard swearing" to get them out of it this time. Leahy had Lad liquor, but I should not call him drunk.

MrPoivnall; Had you any drinks yourself?

Witness: "That's ray business." Mr Pownall; "I want au answer because I am going to produce evidence that you were intoxicated." Wituoss: "Youcan'tdoit." Mr Pownall; " I require an answer," Witness: " I refuse to answer Bucha question." His Worship said that the vitnoss , had no need to incriminate himself,

Mr Pownall said ho iißked the question in fairness because he might bring evidonco to show tbo consUblo was intoxicated, Sergeant McArdlo said such accusations would not woigli to Mr Poivaall's credit. The Bench informed the Sergeant that he would be allowed to produce rebutting evidence as to the constable's sobriety.' Mr Pownall: "Did you not go into Philips' Hotel with the Sergoan alter hours on the Saturday night ? '' Witness: "I refuse to answer." On .being further pressed the witnesssaid ho wa3 not on duty and did not go into the hotel. Had not said he was taking tho proceedings aguinst Eastwood because it cost the police nothing and cost Eastwood a good deal, John W. Leahy, bootmaker, residingat Masterton, on oath, stated that he remerabored that on Sunday the 22nd instant bo was in tho Star Hotel, He entered by the side-door of the right-of-way. Anyone could open tho door. Went to look for a man called Ellers, Found him in the hotel. The bar was open. Saw Mr Eastwood and a tall person behind the bar. The barmaid was serving but witness could not swear the drinks were spirituous liquors. Had no drink himself. The drink served might hate been water, Would swear it was not beer. Knew beer when he saw it, Did not hear the drink called for. Had no drink himself during that day in tho Star hotel.

Sergeant MoArdle: What did you tell mo you had to drink ? Witness; "Well, I must tell you Sergeant, I was a bit excited and I can explain to the Court why." Sergeant MoArdle:' Did you not have numerous liquors ? Witness: "Whatisnumorous? I night havo had one or two driuk». I did not havo them at the Star Hotel,"

Sorgeant McArdle:' Where did you. get tho liquor? Witness "That's my business?" Sergeant McArdle: "Didyou not tell mo where you got tho drink ?" Witness: "I am not clear about what I said on that day. I supposo the document will say." Mr Pownall strongly objected to the written statement of Leahy being put in as evidence, Sergeant McArdle insisted on puk ting it in,

Sorgeaut: Is this your signature ? Mr Pownall: " Dont answer," MrPownall objected to this statement as evidence,

His Worship said tho statement could not be taken as evidence. Tho evidence must be given in the Court, Sergeant McArdle said he was instructed to take down what was stated to him by any informant or complainant.

The Rench said there could he no objections to answeringthe question. Witness shown the document said the signature was a very indifferent one. Ho must have been in a ; very queer state wben ho signed it, Mr Pownall asked to seo the document. Sergeant McArdlo objected, The Bench said it had been made i use of and Mr Pownall should see it. i Sergeant McArdle: " Did you seo , mo this morning ?" Witness: " Yes." Serjeant McArdlo: " And you told me you hud to drink on tho occasion in question." (Mr Pownall objected to the question.) Sergeant McArdlo: " Have you been got at or talked ovor by anyone this morning." Witness: "I have not," i Sergeant McArdle: "What did you tell mo this morning." The witness said he could not' remember. Sergeant McArdlo: "You have been the cause of this matter being brought up and now you are making different statements altogether. How many brandies did you havo at the Star Hotel on Sunday," Wituess: " None."

Sergeant McArdle: "Did you not pee drinks paid for on Sunday I" Witness;" Ido not roraember,"

Sergeat MoArdle: " Did you have any ' wines' on Sunday or ' lemonade with a dash."

Tho witness did not know if he bad even lemonade with or without a dash,

Sergeant McArdlo: Your memory is so bad. 1 will not detain the Court any longer. Where did you have tho drinks that made you intoxicated on Sunday ? Witness; "That's my business,"

Sergeant McArdle; Where did you get the drinks that made you bo drunk that Eastwood had to put you out.?

Witness: I did not know that 1 was intoxicated.

Mr Pownall: Did you speak to Eastwood or myself this morning ? Witness : No, Certaiuly not,

Mr Pownall: You were excited by being struck at, and that was how you went to Constable Stewart, Witness; Yes. Sergeant Mc&rdle said this closed the case fur the prosecution, and tho second information would bo with drawn, Mr Pownall submitted that the information now before them would bave to be dismissed, as the licence bad not been proved. As far as the evidence went, it might have been the BtarHotel, Wellington. ■ His Worship could not say from tho ovidenoo that them was more than one Star Hotel, Tho evidence of the constable was indefinite. Ho was asked to go to the " Star Hotel." Tho Act was dofectivo as to the form of tho license and tho license (read) was Bach that the licenses was titled to sell on any day and it did not preclude Sunday. The license did not specify what day or days ho was not allowed to sell. The license to sell was according to the sobeduleof the tho Act. The Act was contradictory in itself, and consequently was ultra vires. It made it penal to sell on Sunday, and yet granted a license to tOBOII on any day. The last objeotiun was that it had not been shown that tho house was kept opou for tho sale of liquor. Thero was likewise no proof that intoxicating liquor was being sold. The case was accordingly dismissed,