SEQUEL TO BANQUET.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 898, 18 August 1910, Page 5

SEQUEL TO BANQUET.

0 A PROSECUTION., LIQUOR ON TABLES AFTER TEN. A case of interest to hotel licensees, athletic clubs, banqueters, and others was-heard before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Jforshall' John Donnelly' was charged that, on August 8, being tho licensee of tho New Zealander Hotel, he allowed liquor (although purchased before tho time of closing) to be consumed on his licensed premises, during tho time at which such' premises are directed to bo closed by the Act. Mr. M. Myers appeared for defendant.

lhe case for the. prosecution, as outlined by Inspector Ellison,-was that, at 10.35 p.m. on the night in question, tho police visited the house and found a number of men holding an entertainment in the dining-room. There wero jugs of beer before them on the table, and glasses containing beer and "soft" drinks. Tho occasion was a smoke concert held by tho Ramblers Football Club. Sergeant Kelly stated that oa Monday night, August 8, about IDJS p.m., he visited tho premises and was admitted after knocking. Ho heard some men singing, and on entering the dining-room saw about 50 men sitting, at table with glasses before thum and jugs of beer on the table. Mr. Donnelly informed him that tho liquor had been purchased in the afternoon. Mr. .M'Lean, secretary of the I'ootball- Club, also told him in Mr. Donnelly s presence that the liquor (10 gallons of beer and two bottles of whisky) had been purchased at the time stated, and a similar account was given by Mr. Waters, a committeeman. Answering, a question from Mr. Myers, Sergeant Kelly said that the young men were a very orderly assemblage. Some of them were members of the Y.M.C.A. Constable Bennett gave corroborative evidence. ' i , ■.

Mr. Myers.submitted that it was not a case for conviction. The affair began at 7.30, aDd tflo police had brought no evidence to show what time it'had broken . up. It was absolutely necessary, he contended, that the men should be seen cuu- '■ suming liquor. -' When the .police entered a song was in progress. The gathering, may havo broken up just after, without a 'drop being consumed. On account of the consequences of a conviction-against the licensee, some more cogent proof of consumption should be produced. Why had not tho police gone in again shortly after?' It was common' knowledge that in banquets to the Premier, the AttorneyGeneral, and such persons written permission was obtained for the holding of thorn. He apprehended that the police now wanted to show that, in future, at entertainments of the kind, liquor would not be allowed to be consumed after closing hours. He contended, that they , had shown that, but that there was >not suihcient evidence for a conviction in this case.

■The magistrate remarked that tho evidence was sufficient to call on defendant for some explanation. ' Mr. Myers thereupon put his client into the' box.

Marshall John Donnelly stated that he understood that members of the committee of the football club had obtained permission for the entertainment to take place. He had made arrangements with Mr. Waters,that no liquor was to be consumed after 10 o'clock. '■ He had riot bean in the diningroom until the" polico came in, as his barman had taken ill that day and ho hod to take a- hand himself. He had almost finished adjusting the casli at the time that the police entered.

Mr Myers:"l now submit, your Worship, that the licensee did not allow beer 1.0 Tie consumed, and that lie took every precaution against it—eve"ry precaution under the circumstances. '■■ ' .

The magistrate intimated that he would like to hear Mr. Watcrs's evidence. Thecase was thereupon adjourned till, the afternoon, v/heu Mr. Waters attended. Harry Waters, agent, of Wellington, and vice-president of the Ramblers' Football. Club, said that arrangements had been previously made with/Mr. Donnelly, that liquor would not : be'"serVed out after 10 o'clock. He saw the jugs of beer on the table after 10 o'clock,, but could uot say if beer was consumed after tfiat hour. . ', ■

To Inspector Ellison: He.could not say that it was not consumed after .10 o'clock. He remembered seeing ■ him (Inspector Ellison)-before the affair, and understood him to' say that it. might get the licensee into trouble if liquor was served out after 10 p.m. He was not, however, quite clear as to tho words which the inspector used. ,

The magistrate said certain facts 'wero admitted. These ,were that there, were jugs of liquor or, at any rate, there were glasses, and the ho'ur was 10.35. Defendant did not know whether any liquor-was served, but trie fact that it was there on the table meant that it was there for consumption. It was not a case for a heavy penalty, but it would show the danger which licensees subjected themselves 'to if they permitted such n state of affairs to exist/on their premises. Defendant would be fined 20s, and costs 7s. : •;. ■,-■•"