HOTEL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 144, 20 June 1899, Page 4

HOTEL CASE.

POLICE V. kr BRQfc

(Bei'ore Mr 7T. Hutchison, S.M.)

The evidence in this case was give^l at the last sitti-j* of the.Court. Hisft ! Worship gave judgment. He saltjjH i The defendant, who is the licengi^B of the Victoria Hotel, is charged on',the one set of facts of keeping" his-'' I hotel open and exposing liquor forsale after closing hours on Saturday,;, the 3rd' June iust. . The evidence for!),: j the prosecution did not-, he thought, I 'amount to more than this: A police^ constable entered the defendant's'! house (of which the oiiter doors were l.^ closed) sometime after ten p.m., andY found on the premises a large number of persons not lodgers, who left pre-,;j | cipitately on his entrance. The licen--: see was within the bar which was lighted up, and two mugs of beer were on the bar ledge. He COti]ajffl not say (and there was no other % evidence on the point) that any ■% liquor was consumed or served for ? '? j consumption after 10 o'clock, nor:S that there was any indication of drinking going on. There was^ (H&N> cept for the two mugs of beer before M mentioned) no liquor exposed toitho view of those present. The circum-^ stances, were very suspicious. .Thes? stampede of the visitors, the uocon«J;|

sumed beer on the bar ledge, end.: the presence of the landlord in iht * lighted-up bar, pointed to some i'licit. traific. Moreover, the explanation / offered by the defendant to account for the mugs of beer on t£e .bar|r: ledge,. although a possible oie, was / not very satisfactory. But suspicion is not.proof, and conjecturi' cannot, y take the place of inference.And upon.. a .review of the whole jiatter "ids conclusion was that the/c was not M that amount of proof w)fch excludes 'J :i all reasonable doubt. The defendant; ■ must, of course, have/ac benefit of; that doubt, and the.ijformation Wiil .- accordingly be disini^ed.