SUPPLIED WITH BEER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 20, 25 January 1927, Page 10

SUPPLIED WITH BEER.

DELIVERY IN STREET. , HOTELKEEFER FINED filO. FIXE OF £5 IMPOSED ON BARMAN. As the outcome of an incident on the night of December 10, when two men were supplied with seven bottles of beer in the street outside the Alexandra Hotel, the licensee of that house, Albert Edward Neville, was fined £10, with costs, in the Folice Court this morning, Mr. F. E. Hunt, S.M., entering a conviction on a charge of selling liquor in contravention of section 190 of the Licensing Act. A man named Rupert Bell, a carter, who was sometimes employed on Saturday afternoons and holidays as a barman, was fined £5 on a charge of supplying liquor to a person who was not at the time entitled to be supplied. Facts Reviewed. The facts of the case were reviewed in a written judgment delivered by Mr. F. K. Hunt. S.M., to-day. On December 10 Constables Buckley and Bowman saw two men, Keevey and Mitchie, go into the Alexandra Hotel and come out again soon after. Bell followed them into the street a little later, and, saying, "Come over here," walked across the street to e. dark shadow under the entrance to a building. There he handed the two men seven bottles of beer and told them to get away. Keevey and Mitchie had been convicted for being on the premises. The first-named had stated in evidence that he went to the hotel and asked Bell to get him half a dozen bottles of beer. He gave Bell G/. Mitchie said he gave his money to Keevey in order to pet beer. According to the evidence of Constable Buckley, the licensee would not say anything: when told what had taken* place. Mrs. Neville, however, taid to the constable, "I suppose you are pleased now you have caught us. Why don't you get the big houses t" Bell, said the* magistrate. had admitted that Keevey gave him 7/ for beer. Bell also said that he then gave the money to the licensee, who gave him seve-n bottles, which he (Bell) afterwards handed to the two men outside. Bell told the magistrate that he led the licensee to believe that he wanted the beer for himself. The magistrate said Bell would be fined £5, because the sale was made in the hotel, where the money was paid, and seven bottles were carried from the bar for delivery to the purchasers. Neville had set up several defences: (1) That seven bottles of beer were sold by liitu to Bell for bis own consump-

tion; (2) That the beer was not supplied oil the premises; (3) That lie was only responsible for what Bell did as a barman, and that this sale of beer was outside the scope of his authority. The first defence was a question of fact, and he did not believe the statement. '"If I did believe it," said Mr. Hunt, "the sale would be illegal, unless the liquor was sold for consumption on the premises." The third defence might have been an answer had Bell opened the bar unknown to the licensee. But he had given Neville the 7/ when he was in the bar. Neville handed over the liquor without asking any questions or taking any precautions. He, therefore, iiad to be convicted. Mr. McYecjh represented the licensee.