FOUND IN HOTEL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 170, 20 July 1936, Page 8

FOUND IN HOTEL.

TWO MEN ARRESTED.

COUNSEL'S POINT SUCCEEDS

WRONG INTERPRETATION,

All interesting and important point as to the interpretation of the Police Offences Act cropped up in the Police Court this morning, when two men were charged with having been found without lawful excuse, but- not so as to disclose

the commission of any other offence, 011 the premises of the Star Hotel, Albert Street.

William Joseph Donovan, aged 29, and Ralph Martin Byfield, aged 42, .two waterside workers, were the accused. Byfield was further charged with being found 011 the premises during the currency of a prohibition order.

ilr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for both men, who pleaded not guilty.

Sub Inspector Fox led evidence to show j that shortly after 3 p.m. 011 July 15 the two accused had been found outside the door of the licensee's bedroom. Donovan had opened the door, and when asked by the licensee what he was doing 011 the first floor lie replied that they were looking for a Mr. Nolan. The licensee went downstairs with both men and got a friend to pose as "Nolan" while he sent for a constable. There was 110 man of flint name staying in the hotel. The licensee said that both men had taken liquor, but were not drunk, although they may have been affected by liquor. A barman stated that Donovan and Byfield had been drinking in the private Bartlett, who was called, neither man from 2 p.lll. to 2.50 p.m. When asked for an Explanation by 'Constable Barlett, who was called, neither man offered an explanation of why he had gone to the first floor. Counsel's Submissions. Mr. Sullivan submitted that the section of the Police Offences Act under which Donovan and Byfield were charged, stated that if they were 011 the hotel without lawful excuse they could be convicted. Both men had been drinking in the bar below for almost an hour before they went upstairs to look for a man whom they had met in another hotel earlier in the day—a man who told them that he was staying at the Star Hotel. By the wording of the section, in order to bring the accused within it, the section would have to be amended as the men were <111 the premises for a lawful purpose. They merely went from one room, the bar, to another on the first floor. There was nothing in the section to say tliev could not go from one part of the premises to another once they were lawfully 011 the premises. "This Act is a penal enactment and I submit it must be strictly construed and not receive the interpretation placed on it by the police," said Mr. Sullivan. "I am relying on the section itself and submit that I am entitled to a dismissal in each of these The Police View. Sub-Inspector Fox drew the magistrate's attention to the wording of the section, that if they were found 011 the premises "at any time" they committed an offence. "We say they were not lawfully 011 the premises when they were found outside a bedroom door on (lie first floor," he added. "It is not the custom of persons looking for a man in a hotel, to go up themselves and look for him, but to inquire at the proper place, the oflice." Mr. Sullivan: My friend's interpretation really means that if a person had finished drinking in a hotel bar and remained 011 the premises he would be there unlawfully. That would be absurd." Counsel then called evidence, the president and walking delegate of the Auckland Watersiders' Union stating that both accused were good workers who were respected by their employers. Suspicious? Stating that while their conduct might perhaps have been suspicious, Mr. W. R. McKean. S.M., added* that a peculiar point about the section of the act was that if Donovan or Byfield had committed an offence 011 the premises they would not come within the section. "I don't think they could have mistaken the licensee's bedroom or sitting room, which was marked 'private.' for the lounge," he said. "I cannot say that because they were upstairs that they were there under circumstances which would justify a conviction under the Police* Offences Act. The charge against them must be dismissed."

On the charge of entering licensed premises during' the currency of a prohibition order, Byfield was fined £1.