ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4807, 24 August 1894, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Selling Liquor, After Hours. At tho Masterton S.M, Court; this morning beforo Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., Joseph Mandcl, proprietor of the Club Hold, Mastorton,was ohargodon the information of tho police, with a broach of section 155 of tho Licensing Act, in having upon tho night of tho 28th July last,''exposed liquor forsalo,duriugtheliours when directed by his licenso to bo closed.

Sergeant Henry McArtllc prosecuted, and MrW.G, Beard appeared 1 for tho defendant. Constable Stewart said ho remembtred the night of Saturday, 28th July last. In company with Sergeant McArdle he visited the various hotels in Masterton shortly after ton ' o'clock. The first visit to tho Club Hotel was about twenty minutes past ten, tho second at eleven o'clock.' On tho second visit tho inner bar was open, Sergeant McArdle was with witness and they entered the . bar and found eight or ten men in the bar, ho saw one manhavoa glass of beer, Tho liquors were on tho shelves exposed to viow. Mr Mandol and his manager, Mr Slevcnson,were present, Thore wero persons there other than boarders, The Sergeant, in presence of witness re- (| nested Mr Mandcl to close the bar. On the first visit, tho front door was shut hut tho bar-door was opeu. By Mr Beard; On the second visit there were several boarders present. The door of the bar was open before they got to it. Sergeant McArdlo gave ovidenco to the samo effect, lie found on the second visit that the bar-door was open and a number of people in the bar, the bar being lit up. Mr Mandcl was present, and MrStovenson behind the bar. The glass of leer he saw on the counter might Ivo been obtained two hours revionsly for all he knew. By Mr Beard: He was let in by the bhtwatchmaii on his second visit, no bar was a very convenient one, Jul suited that part of the building, no bar door was wide open when he ifint through the folding doors, all ioso in the bar were standing up. lie told Mr Mandcl that he would lay nn information, and that his (Mr Mnndel's) was the only bar open in the town that night. Mr Mandcl replied, " Then how in the world aro they serving their customers," For tho de'enco, Mr Beard pointed out that the information charged the licensee with exposing liquors ; for sale and not with selling, the information must fall to tho ground, becauso thero was no evidence that the liquors were exposed for sale. : Exposure for sale must mean that persons outside of the bar could sec ; the liquors and some one offering them for sale, ■ His Worship said tho Sergeant ; contended that the bar being open was an exposure, i

Mr Beard continued his argument at some length. His Worship said that by Mr Beard's contention all it was necessary for a gang of men to do was to go into a bar before ten o'clock and stay there as long as they liked without the licensee becoming liable. Mr Beardsaid this was not so, he had not intended to convey that. A sketch of tho bar showing its position was then handod to His Worship, and Mr Beard in concluding his argument, asked that the case be dismissed as thero was no evidence of a brench of the Act. His Worship decided to hear evidence for the defence. Joseph Mandel, proprietor of the Club Hotel, on oath stated that he renumbered the night of the 28th July when the Sergeant came in about a quarter to eleven, The manager and himself were making up returns in tho bar, and certain boarders and their friends were in tho bar also, tho door being closed, AH the doors leading to the bar were shut. Two residents, other than hoarders, were in tho Hotel on business, Was perfectly certain that all the doors were closed. No liquors were supplied to other persons than boardors, after the closing hour. A boarder had invited a friend up, and the friend had taken a liquor with him, but outsiders had not been supplied. At the time alluded to (July 28th) the rooms wero not quite complete, nor yet tho bar, and the people present were sitting in the bar as the most convenient pkce. Therowero other rooms for boarders. By Sergeant McArdle: Remembered the Sergeant looking into the Partners' Boom, Recollected his second visit to the Hotel. Was talking to the manager when the Sergeant came in. Could swear the bar door was closed. At this stage, Sergeant McArdle said if Mr Mandel swore that the bar door was shut ho could go no further, as under tho clause he had I brought tho charge, if tho doors were shut, there was no exposure.

Witness furthor asserted that the doors leading to the bar wo closed on the occasion referred to, when the Sergeant visited the hotel the second time.

His Worship asked if the Sergeant considered that to soil to a lodger was illegal ? The Sergeant said ho thought it was not.

His Worship said it was strange that it should be an offence to show n man a bottlu and yet not an offence to give him tlio contents, Sergeant McArdlo said ho main-, tained that, according to the Act, exposing liquor for sale was to keep the bar open, Jlv Beard said that if a licensee supplied a lodger and another person stood by, an exposure of liquor must take place, and therefore no offence could ho disclosed. It was admitted by tho polico thatitwasno offence.to supply aloclger, and if so, thero was nothing to prevent a licensee supplying llquqi' in the bar, and such being the case these could he no exposure. There was HQ question qE tlio km fides of the boarders, he understood, Bytho Bench: Witness (J, Mandel j' was aware that outsiders oame into tlio Hotel between the Sergeant's two visits. They came on business.'

James Stevenson, manager of tho Hotel, was called and stated that the Sergeant and Constable Stewart , came into the Hotel about 15 minutes past ten On the evening ef tho 28th July. The people were going out at thoiimo. Liquor was supplied to, hoarders only inftor 10 o'clock, ; On the second visit of : tho polico the] door leading to the bar Was shut. It'i was "either 'Mr Mandel or the Sergeaht'Svho opened the bar door, ho couldnot'Swcarwliich,^' No liquor was, f nppHect, ejtcW to boarders or their frieruls'.af'terlO.o'plock.:' The IjarinaiJVn'd'liarmaii wont out pf the bars at 10 o'clock, '" "'' " ; 'i

By Sergennt McArdlo: Could not eoy whether the light in the bar was

'iio sii'mo or not, on both occasions whori the police visited tho Hotel, Was in tie bar for the purpose of supplying .hoarders, with liquors. By tho Beuch: Access to the bar was gained by ono public door, Witness ;\vont into tho bar ut littlo before teu, ; and-remained there, He did not then shut the door, until about 10.15' when tho Sergeant paid his first visit. Mr Manuel had given strict instructions to closo.mid lock tho bar.. Witness had not carried out the instructions not wishing to offend tho boarders.. Other evidenco was taken regarding the position of the bar-door.; "'■ . His Worship said as tho matter of exposure was agreed upon on both sides,' it'became merely a matter of fact, and as the oyidenco.jn respect to tho door being open or not, was so conflicting! he would cjivc defendant the benefit of tho doubt.' The information was thoreforo dismissed.