THE LIQUOR REGULATIONS.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15751, 18 November 1916, Page 4

THE LIQUOR REGULATIONS.

ECHO OF RECENT COVRT CASE I FINK OF '-•} LM! ! l)Si:i). Itr rin- "\l«;:i>trato\s Court yesterday, lieiore Mr 'I'. 15. Railey, S.M.. Art'n'ir l'nsf ivm charged with mi September t-Tlii, U'llfj. permitting treating nu lircti~e,] promise* of which lie was tin' •iceiwe. !)oiv -Miillins was (mi two niiimi) witii having served "treated" drinks in Charles Oiahaine and -1 (ilm i'liullay, and Cliarle* (iralianii- v.-as cl'.armii wiih having "trai'ti'tl" contrary to the V.'ar InI i;11> > Act. .Mr (:r--iiiv appeared !<ir tlic defendant-. : in: S;il»-1!:;-peetor Miillaney t'nr the i.rnscc:ilio:i. |i n.'is decided. as i he cases vpranc; "i:t ,ii' one conmr.m set <il' <ircitmsl;.:;(.c<. t;> take tlleiil tovj.lT ! M <•. I>o];ilid (uviri-'" deposed thai cil Si'pteiul'.e: 71n last, he wa< in comr.inv with one .Jnim Findlav, since deceased. Il< and Imiiu'.iv boarded at Ihe same place. They went to the Cal'e dc Paris at, about 8 n.w Witness deia hd the evidence '.j.iven ;u the time t:i t!;e Court proceedings. They lia.d drinks. Tliev we:'c served hy a barSrahaiie joined in. Tl.ev liau more drinks, (Jrahnnte shouting. Tlie.e were seined by Dora Midlins. The (|itrtrr<'| —alrcadv reported—occurred while tins drink was being consumed. A tier out and retiirninj* drink< cere placed in front of them by Dora MuMins. Tlie barmaid asked witness what he would have. They (lie and Fim'iav; v.-crc there about toil minutes. To Mr Ca.v-idy : Witness had no V,rud'j;i' a;. f aiu.,t (itahame. lie did not ■•ay to M iss Mullins that if anything li.'inpeued he would null (Srahatv.e. He did not visit the I'othcrfiel,! Hotel that at all-—i r w;v the previous night. He and Findlay wore never at the liotlte:Held M< rei that ni;z!it. The first two sets of drinks were supplied by "iris he did not know, (•rahaine was in the bar when witness and Findlay wont in. and came up to tliem. Witness did not shout, and did not pay lor any drinks. Witness had no money on hitn that uiiiht. lu acceptin<j; drinks, witness ■-aid he \\a- comaiittinti an offence, under -the War Regulations. Mr Cassidv held that tTie evidence of L'ollins shouir| be discounted, as he was an accomplice, lie held that there was no cn~e to answer. The H.ui' h decided there was a case. Hugh Charles (liahame, snorting, .journalist, said that on the nijjlit in question he was in the bar of the C.afo (if Paris- Findlay and Collins camo in. lie did not shout, twi'e for Collins and Findlay that m'-ilil. There was a. drink in front of him when they camo in. He (witness) paid for his own drink. Jie did not. ".shout"' for anyone in the hotel that He. left about nine o'clock. To the Sub-Tnspector: Findlay paid for drinks for himselfDora Mullins, barmaid at the Cafe do Paris Hotel, deposed that Grahame had only one drink. She could not remember Collins. Before 10 o'clock Findlay and >, Collin* (ante in, and she asked theni "What tliey would have." As far as she .could remember, .Findlay paid for the drinks. Air Hose had given the strictest instructions.

To tho Sub-Inspector: She was sure .she wa<s not mistaken in the night. When Collins and Findlay were drinking there were two separate pieces of money before her. To the Bench : She served one drink to Findlay. Graliatne was drinking whisky and .soda, or whisky and water. The first time <die noticed Findlay and Collins was when they were talking to Grahamc. Yt'hen Findlay came back she asked him if lie were all right. Walter Dolling, barman at tho llotheriield Hotel, deposed that he saw Findlay in the passage of the Rother(ield Hotel at about 9 p.m. or 9.10 p.m. im • September 27th. Witness s|>oke to Findlay. Witness went straight to the Cafe and was told of the trouble. Witness said there could not be much wrong as he (witness) had just spoken to Findlay." To the Sub-Inspector: Mi's Granger, one. of the barmaids, told him that the trouble! had been between Findlay and Collins. Was sine that it was Collins. Edwin Barnes, licensee of the Rothi erfield Hotel, deposed he had known Findlay very well. On September 27th between 9 p.m. and 9.10 p.m., he saw Findlay and Collins at'the Rotherfield Hotel. Collins went down tho passage. J. T. Sutton and Frank Drewitt deposed as to meeting Mr Rose on business matters. Mr Rose left them •shortly before 10 o'clock. itecalled by the Bench, Collins said that he and Findlay went into the Cafe about 5.30 p.m. Alter the quarrel they went un to Whitcnmbe and Toinbs's. It might havot been half an hour after they left the Cafe that Findlay insisted on returning. They went back and left again at 10 o'clock. They had been in the Rothorfield Hotel the previous day between 9 p.m. and 10 p.in. At the Cafe bar Graliame paid for the drinks with one coin. The last drinks were not paid,for either by Findlay or witness. Findlay, indeed, did not drink his. His Worship said ho would fine Grahamc t'-3, costs 9s, and expenses £2 9s fid. As to Miss Mullin~. she might have been confused, and he gave her the benefit of the doubt. As to Mr Rose, he had taken every precaution. The charges against them would be dismissed. CONVICTION'S QUASHED. (PP.ESS ASSOCIATION' TELEGRAM. 1 WELLINGTON. November 17. Mr Justice Edwards gave judgment to-day on a motion to quash the conviction of Joan Lang, a barmaid, at the Clarendon Hotel, on charges of selling liquor and allowing "treating" on October 30t'n. His Honour remarked that the two informations 011 which defendant had been convicted by the Magistrate were in slightly different form. On the first information the Magistrate inflicted a fine of £0, and on. the. second defendant was convicted and discharged. Looking at the two convictions alone, it would appear that the defendant had been twice convicted for one ofTence. The affidavits, however, showed that there had been two offences at different times. In the circumstances of the case it was inevitable that the evidence 011 both charges must be the same, and they were heard together, but 110 formal arrangement was made for so doing. The mistake was a natural one to make, but the consent of both par- j ties should have been formally given, and recorded by the Magistrate. Coun- j sel admitted that the second conviction could not stand, but neither of the con- 1

viction* could be supported on account of the uncertainty of the charges that were made. In such a case the charge must he certain and particular as regards the time of the alleged offence, and a serious principle of criminal law had been neglected. When the Magistrate made a fine of £'o-, counsel for defendant applied to have it increased so that there might be the right of appeal. The Magistrate, refused to do this, on the ground that some Judges of the Supreme Court had expressed their aversion to such procedure. It was plain that in this regard the Magistrate was in error. The matter was one in which there could not be a common pronouncement, it could not amount to a ruling of the Court. Logically, there should be the right of appeal in "all cases of importance, especially where loss of employment followed on a fine. The Mnsi;strau« bad nctod under an erroneous impression when he refused to .give an opportunity eg having

tlit> whole matter enquired into in the Supreme Court. His Honour finally ruled that lie ought not to allow sin amendment of tin? records, and tlio convictions must therefore l»e ciuaslied.