RESENTED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 290, 7 December 1935, Page 10

RESENTED.

POLICE ACCUSATION. PERSIAN CAFE RAID. COUNSEL ISSUES CHALLENGE. Evidence of a raid by the police upon the Persian Cafe restaurant in Swanson Street at 2.15 on the morning of October G last was given in the. Police Court yesterday afternoon, wlidn .several boxes were produced. In the boxes were 118 pint beer bottles full, 131 empty bottles, a. full bottle of whisky and one containing a small quantity, two empty gin bottles, two empty whisky flasks, and one or two other bottles. - The exhibits were produced as part of the evidence against Roy McGregor, who was charged with selling liquor on unlicensed premises, and also, being the proprietor of the Persian Garden Cafe, he allowed liquor to be consumed in the | restaurayt. Elsie Robertson and Albert Nixon were charged with consuming liquor in the restaurant when licensed premises were required to be closed. Nancy Xaburn and John Barrett were charged with being found on the premises for the purpose of illegally dealing in liquor, and Ernest, James Holland was charged with being found on the premises, he not being a servant or lodger. Mr. J. F. W. Dickson appeared for the accused and Sub-Inspector D. Scott represented the police. Mr. Dickson said he would admit the charges of selling by McGregor, but not the charge of being the proprietor. He called the wife of McGregor, who said the restaurant business was hers and that she had put her capital into it and that she paid the rent. Police Statements Challenged. Certain statements employed by SubInspector Scott in describing the cafe were denied and challenged by Mr. Dickson, who appeared for defendant.

Sub-Inspector Scott said that a constable in plain clothes went to the premises on the night of October 2 and purchased eight bottles of beer from Roy McGregor. He had no difficulty in getting the liquor. McGregor told him that he had both beer and gin. Liquor was consumed on the premises and the constable saw 'others purchasing .and drinking it, a number being under the influence of liquor.

On October 3 the same constable again visited the cafe, purchasing a further eight bottles of beer for 1/ each. Oil October 5 he was there again and bought 10 bottles of beer. Early on the morning of October C Sergeants Scarry, Dunn and Brady and some constables executed a search warrant at the cafe and seized 118 bottles of beer, a quart bottle of whisky and a bottle of gin. They also checked 131 pint bottles which had contained beer. "Be Fair." When the raiding party entered the premises, said Mr. Scott, they saw McGregor. About 30 persons were seated at tables, many being under the influence of liquor. When told by the police that they had a warrant, McGregor said, "Go ahead, it's in your own hands." "These premises have for a long time been notorious for sly Kro<; j sellin<*," said Mr. Scott. a Mr. Dickson": Now, be fair, please. Sub-Insptfcetor Scott said he had had a careful check made on the premises for a long time. He asserted that the place was frequented by undesirable people, and gave further expression to his opinion as to the way in which the premises were conducted.

Mr. Dickson called upon jtlie sub inspector to prove his. assertions.

Sub-Inspector Scott said,the conduct of such a place had a far-reaching effect on morals. Liquor had been sold while hotels were required to be closed. He asked that a sharp lesson be given in this case.

Mr. Dickson said Sub-Inspector Scott's statements were given an absolute denial. He challenged him to prove them. If they were true, then they should have some evidence of them.' He suggested that the magistrate should bo guided by the circumstances of the case and not the extravagant police statements. The magistrate was here to protect his client as well as to punish him for what he had admitted. ■Fine of £50 Imposed. His Worship: I have no doubt the police had good ground for laying a trap. They did it successfully, the trap went off, and caught something. I am not concerned whether there was gambling or anything else on the premises. Where a person is charged with selling liquor without a license, very little, can be urged in mitigation of the penalty. The Act provides for a fine not exceeding £50 for a first offence, and I see no reason for making the penalty lighter. He is fined £50 on one charge and ordered to pay costs amounting in all to £5 13/ on the other charges. The charge of being the occupier was dismissed.