ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 241, 13 October 1886, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Thomas O'llEinNH, landlord of tho Market Hotel, was proceeded against at the Police Court to-day on a chargo of selling liquor during prohibited hours. Mr Cutter appeared for the defendant ntnl pleaded not guilty. Albert ft. Hunter was called, and deposed that about a quarter" past eleven o'clock on the night of the ;>tli instant lie was invited by a Mr Wiggins (who resided in the Market Hotel), to have a drink. Norton Cowie was with him. and they three went into tbe Market Hotel, where they wore supplietl with beer. He did not know who admitted them, and believed lhat some question was put at the door but dill not know what il was. He did noi know who served them with the liquor. He put bis hand out. by instinct for the glass, and it was put into bis band. He saw Mr O'Bt'trne in tbe passage. The place Mas lighted, but be could not see if any .others were there. Norton Cowie. photographer, told a similar story. He saw Mr U'lleirnc coming down stairs after they went into the hotel. This was the ca;e for the prosecution. .

Mr Cotter submitted that there was no ease. as Ihe onus resiled with the. prosecutor of showing that tho r/eev was sold or supplied by Mr O'llierne or one of bis employes, or was supplied with bis knowledge. Ho quoted a case in whioh the steward of a club supplied liquor contrary to tho.instructions of the committee and the latter wero lined. The conviction was granted on appeal. The utmost that bad been shown was that Mr Wiggins, who was a vendor, supplied the liquor.

Tito ileneh said they would prefer to bear evidence respecting Mr Wiggins', posit.on iv the bouse.

William Wiggins deposed that be paid .eta week as a lodger in the Market, Hotel, and was not in Mr O'Bicrno's employ in any way whatever. Mr O'Bicrnc opened the door for liini on tbe night in question, and seeing that it was witness ho went upstairs and left him to close Die door. Witness got Hie beer, and Mr O Bierne knew nothing whatever about it. Under crass-examination by Sergeant Pratt the witness said he bad often acted as barman for Sir O Bierne when they were, in a hurry In reply to Mr Cotter, Mr \Vi;-;qiiK, su;d|hc bad no authority to go behind tho bar, unless requested to do so. He was not authorised to co behind the bar that evening. Tho Bench considered that the charge must tail. If the information had been for supplying" instead of •■ selling," it might have succeeded.

Sergeant Pratt submitted that there was no such offence as supplying under the Act. The Bench ruled that this was only greater reason why the prosecution should fail." They lowcver, pointed out that Wi Ks ii, s appeared to have rendered himself liable by opening «, bailor tho sale of liquor without being rtulv heensed. The charge was therefore dismissed