LIQUOR AFTER HOURS

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19891, 21 May 1936, Page 11

LIQUOR AFTER HOURS

I TWO PORTERS CONVICTED. LABOUR GONFERENCE SEQUEL. ACTION OF SECRETARY. (Times Representative.) TE AWAMUTU, \\’ednesday. A charge that. |being a person other than the licensee, he had supplied ‘quuor after hours, was preferred against John F. McMillan, a porter at the Te Awamutu Hotel, in the M 381? trate's Court to-day. A similar char e was preferred against Fred D. .\lrVuagh another employee. Mr F. H. Levien, 5..\1., presided and defendants were represented by Mr S. S. Pres—ton, The case for the police was conducted by Constable J. Forsyth. Pleas oi’ guilty were entered by Mr Preston on behalf of McMillan and McV'eagh. Constable Forsyth said on Sunday. April 5, he had seen H men leaving the hotel. He 'had approached one of them. but the man would say nothing regarding his business on the prem—ises. When the proprietor, Mr ,J. Shea, had returned he had told the police omcer that the men must have been members of the Te Awamutu branch of the Labour Party, which was holding an all—day conference. They must have gone into the hotel at the invitation of McMillan, who was the sß9lletery or the local branch.

Mr Preston said that as the secretary or the branch, McMillan would be responsible for the entertainment of the day and when the conference was over he had asked his friends to have a "spot" with him as his guests. .\5 the hotel \\'as his home he had thought he was entitled to take the men in with him. .\lcllillau had asked .\icVeagh, \\‘ho was an duly, to supply him with drinks for the party and this had been done.

In reply to Mr Levien's question as to whether McMillan was paying for the drinks, .\lr Preston said he supposed that would come out o! the conference expenses. He contended that defendants had made a bona tide mistake \\’tih regard to their privileges. There was no suggestion of illicit trad—ing. It seemed that u servant in an hotel was the only person who was unable to ask any-one to partake of his hospitality. A line of £2 and costs was imposed In each case.