ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2908, 21 October 1916, Page 10

ANTI-SHOUTING LAW

PROSECUTIONS IN WELLINGTON

EMPIRE HOTEL BARMAN

PINED £10

HILARIOUS PROCEEDINGS

The first anti-shouting cases heard iu Wellington camo before the Magistrate's Court yesterday. A barman at tho Empire Hotel was fined £10, a case against the- licensee of the Empire Hotel was dismissed, judgment was reserved in a case against a barmaid at the Britannia Hotel, and several cases were adjourned. Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., was on the Bench, and Police inspector Hendrey prosecuted.

'Die first case was against Francis Fisher, a barman at the Empire Hotel, who was charged with having, on October 7, sold intoxicating liquor in respect of which an offonco was committed, or intended to bo committed, by somo other person. There was, also, another similar charge against Fisher respecting the same date. '

Mr. T. 31. Wilford appeared for Fisher, and at his request all witnesses wero ordered out of Court. The Court was crowded, and tho proceedings were marked by extraordinary hilarity owing to the laughter-provoking ovidenco of one of tho witnesses. Heavy Fine Asked For. In opening the case, Inspector Hendrey said that the charges were lai: under the War Regulations gazetted oj August 2, - which treated it an offenc* for a person, licensee, bar attendant, or servant of the licensee to knowingly sell, supply, or receive payment for any intoxicating liquor in the form of treating. -Treating, or "shouting," was prohibited. It was alleged that on the date in question a constable and another man went to the Empire Hotel, and on two occasions the constable bought and paid for drinks for his companion. Tho maximum penalty fixed was £100.

Constable S.ymonds was called, and ho.said he knew the defendant Fisher by sight. Ho said that on October 7 he visited the Empire Hotel at about 9 p.m. He was in plain clothes and had a- friend with him. He went into the dive bar, called for two heers and passed a shilling across the bar to tho defendant Fisher, who took the money and returned 4d. change. It was a l'ourpenny bar.

His Worship: Hon' much beer did you getP ' The constable: I drank a medium my companion a pint. Constable Symonds added that ho and the friend returned at 9.30 p.m., and again Fisher supplied them with liquor, which witness paid for. Fisher put the money in the till, and the pair left the hotel. His Worship': Yon left after disposing of tlie beer, I suppose, not after ho pilt the money in the till. The Two Mugs. Mr. Wilford: At what time of tlia night were the two mugs supplied? (Laughter.) The constable: I don't quite understand you. Mr. Wilford: I will make it clearer. At what time of tho night were the two mugs supplied—from which you nxi your companion drank? (Renewed laughter.) . Tho constable: There was only one mug supplied. (Laughter./ Mr. wilford: If you caught this man, why did you not there and then tell this mau that he had broken tho law? Tho constable: I was acting under instructions. Mr. Wilford: Can you draw a plan of the bar? ■ ■■-- The constable: No. I am not an architect. Mr. Wilford: You are better at drawing the beer than the bar. (Laughter.) . Mr. Wilford: What hotels had you visited beforehand? The constable: The Cambridge, tho Terminus, and the Clarendon; but as it happened it was soft drinks I had had. Mr. Wilford: How many drinks? Tho constable: Four. Two beers and two shandies. Mr. Wilford: You know that from nine till ten on a Saturday night is a rush time? The constable: Yes. James Cameron, who accompanied Constable Symonds to the Kmpiro Hotel, then gave evidence. He was asked if he could see in the Court the man who he said supplied h'qiior to himself and Symonds. After locking round for somo time, witness said (pointing to Fisher), "1 think that is the man." His Worship: He put his hand to his mouth, so that he would Hot be easily recognised. Mr. AViltord: Where did you como from ? Cameron: The Wairarapa. Mr. Wilford: Can you define it any closer? Cameron: Tablelands. Mr. Wilford: Is that a station ? Cameron: Yes. Riddiford's. Mr. Wilford: Are you here for a holiday? Cameron; Not exactly. Mr. Wilford: Hero to enlist ? Camoron: I might later on, if they will take me? A "Soft Job" and Free Beer. Mr. Wilford: Are j'ou looking for work ? Cameron: Yes. Mr. "Wilford: Going to join the Police Force ? // - Cameron: I might. Soft job, yoir know. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: And free beer? Cameron: Just so. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: That would be better than Wairarapa?. Cameron: Yes. (Laughter.) His Worship: Wairarapa is dry, you know. (Laughter.) ' Mr. Wilford: Where did the constable pick you up? Cameron: I don't kr.ow. I don't know these streets here. I was just drifting about. Mr. Wilford: Did you know he was a policeman ?_ Cameron: No.

Mr. Wilford: Did yon know you wore going to trap someone? Cameron: Yes. Mr. Wilford: Did he_tell_you that?

Cameron: Noj he said, "Come along and have .1 drink, and we will see what's doing." Mr. Wilford: What are you? Cameron: A worker. Mr. Wilford: A worker at the har, like I am. His Worship: Perha.ps you don't always work at the same bar. (LaughMr. Wilford: You didn't know the constable? He just asked you to havo a drink ? '

Cameron: Yes. _ . Mr Wilford: I can imagine the alacrity with which you responded. (Laughter.) . Mr. Wilford: How many drinks did you liavo that night? Cameron: I am not suro. I lose count after ten. (Much hilarity.) Mr. Wilford: How many do you Cameron: About twenty. (Great laughter.) . Mr. Wilford: You wont to bo a witCameron: I went to get the beer. (More loud laughter.) Mr. Wilford: I suppeco you could not draw me a rough sketch of the bar? I Cameron: I believe I could, but

there were so many in shouting I could not see it. (Laughter.) Cameron added that they had some difficulty in getting to the bar. He did not know who got there first.

Mr. Wilford: Head heat? Cameron: Pretty near. I was after it, and so was he.

Mr. WilfoAl: There was a good crowd there?

Cameron: Yes, and going strong. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: You and the constable pushed your way through the crowd to the bar?

Cameron: Yes. I would have pushed through twice the crowd. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wilford: Did the e'onstablo say "What will you have?"

Cameron: Yes. I said a pint. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: When the constable put down the shilling who took it? Cameron: The man who served tho drinks. Mr. Wilford: Did he put it into tho till?

Cameron: Yes. I would have put it in my pocket. . , Mr. Wilford: Did he put it in tho till or the cash register? Cameron: I am not well versed in these technical terms. I don't know' the difference between a till and a cash register. He put it in tho plaoa ■ where you put the money in and get tho change out. Piano Fingers and Hen's Feet. Mr. Wilford: Was it the Cameron- The one with tli3 piano fingers. (Uproarious laughter.) •Mr. Wilford: Did the constable tell you at the time that be had committed an offence against the war. regulations ? Cameron: I did not hear. There was such a noise. They were making more noise than that mob at tho back makes when it laughs. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: You broke the law,' anyhow?

Cameron: Yes. Mr. Wilford: And if I layman information against you, you know you have admitted everything here? Cameron: Yes, that's right. Im going to Join the police. - Mr. Wilford: For this work? _. Cameron: No. A lot of other things besides. . Mr. Wilted: You have been in the force before? ' Cameron: A long time back—with the hen's foot on. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford: Oh! Have you been in gaol? Cameron: I did not say so. Mr. Wilford: Is not that the technical term among prisoners . for the prison brand? .Cameron: I don't know. I've never been there. Mr. Wilford: Is not that a fact, any.how? Cameron:- I don't know. I . only meant I left my coat out, and the hens walked over it. • (Roars of laughter.) His Worship: There is more poultry in the Wairarapa than here, you know. Mr. Wilford: Are you. sure some change was given? Cameron: Yes. Mr. Wilford:.What was it? Cameron: Pour coppers, I think. But a man can't say for sure. Because, whon tho change is planked down, you have to grab, or someone elso gets it. So Constable Symonds grabbed quick and lively, and I only 'got a fleeting glance of it. Police Sergeant AVilcox deposed that on October 9 he told Fisher that lie was to be charged with this offence. Fisher said that he had .made everyone pay for his own drinkv The sergeant said that there.were two witnesses to the contrary, and Fisher remarked: "Oh, well, two men can beat one in Court any day."

Fisher in the Box. Mr. Wilford raised the point that.the barman was wrongly charged when, accused of selling. It .'was the liceriseo who sold, and the barman should have been" charged with supplying. Mr. Wilford: It has been held that tho police have a right to trap a man into committing an offence. His Worship: These people are not always so easy to catch, vand so a little strategy must be used at. times. Francis Fisher.-the defendant barman, was then called. He said that prior to coming to Wellington ho was at Coker's Hotel, Christchurch, for seven years, and he had a clean record. Dwyer, the licensee of tho Empire Hotel, had instructed tho staff not to permit shouting. He swore that he had no knowledge of the occurrence deposed to by tho constable and Cameron ' Inspector Hendrey: How long have you heen at the Empire? Fisher: Seven months. Fine and Anneal.

Inspector Hendrey: Did your takings decrease considerably after anti-shout-ing came in? . Fisher: They decreased. I will not say considerably. The Inspector: Have they improved lately? , ' ~, , Fisher: It all depends on which end of the wharves the work is. The Inspector: AVhere the'nig ships are lying? Fisher: Yes. Tho Inspector: Were many soldiers in uniform in that, bar on October 7? Fisher: Yes. The Inspector: Were many of them in a semi-intoxicated condition? Fisher: I don't think so. The Inspector: And were you not permitting shouting wholesale? Fisher: No. '

The Inspector: Do you remember on October 3 five soldiers in uniform coming into your bar and one calling for drinks for the crowd?

Fisher: I don't remember. And ,you said you could not serve them? . ,

Fisher: I have no knowledge of it,

The Inspector: And when they insisted, you said: "Damn it, you will get me in gaol yet," and then served them? Fisher: Not to.my knowledge.

The Inspector: Is it not a fact that the dive bar is becoming somewhat notorious for the condition of tho men leaving there late it night? Fisher: I think ii is a well-conducted bar: >

His Worship then gave his decision. Ho held that an offence had been disclosed; there were two instances of shouting, and defendant must; be convicted.

, Mr. Wilford: I propose to' appeal against the decision on tho ground that no offence has been disclosed and that .the decision is bad. '

His Worship: All right. He is fined £10.

Mr. Wilford: Will you take into consideration that he is deprived of the means of earning his living for six months?

His Worship: I can't do that. My only doubt was whether the penalty should be £10 or £20. I think £10 will be sufficient.

Inspector Hondrey: Is that £10 on each charge?

Mr. Wilford: Good gracious! His Worship: Oh. no. I will fino him £10 on tho first charae, and convict and discharge him on the second. Mr. Wilford: Will Your Worship fix the 'amount of security for appeal ? His Worship: £10. ' Charge Against the Licensee. . Richard Dwyer, tho licenseo of the Empiro Hotel, was charged with having permitted tho above offence. Mr. M. Myers appeared for him. Tho whole of the evidenco given in Fisher's case was deemed to havo been given in this case. Inspector Hendrey said that ho took it that it was now for the defendant liceuseo to discharge the onus which ths regulations cast upon him. Mr. Myerß thought the onus had

already been discharged by Fisher testifying to the precautions taken by Dwyer. However, he would call Dwycr. Mr. Myers declared that the defendant had done everything possible to ensure compliance with the law. ■ Dwyer went into the box.

Mr. Myers: What have you at 6take in the Empire Hotel? Dwyer: I paid £60,000, and I have spent £10,000. Roughly, £70,000. Defendant said bo had taken precautions against shouting. He bad told the staff that there must not be any in his hotel, and he had had notices placed in the bars. One of his managerial staff was' told off to see that these instructions were observed, and defendant himself regularly went through tlie bars. Mr. Myers submitted that Dwyer had done everything required of him. ' His Worship thought that the evidence showed that defendant had taken reasonable measures, and that there was nothing to 6how that he had stood by and allowed the offences. Therefore the information would be dismissed.

Case Against a Barmaid—More Hilarity Margaret M'Garry, a barmaid at the Britannia Hotel, was charged that being a servant of the licensee, she, on October 9, knowingly sold intoxicating •liquor in respect of which an offence against the additional regulations under the War Regulations Act, 1914, was committed or intended.

Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for defondant.

Inspector Hendrey said that the case was somewhat similar to the, Fisher case.

Constable Symonds gave evidence that he "shouted" for a couple of men in'.the Britannia Hotel, and that defendant served them.

James Cameron stated that ho had gone with Symonds to tho Britannia. Symonds went to collect some money he had won in a bet, and feeling pleaseß with himself,' asked them to have a drink,

Mr. M'Grath: You drink' a good deal? !

• Cameron: No. Mr.. M'Grath:! judged by your conduct this morning that you did.

Cameron: You are wrong. Mr. M'Grath: What drink did yoi have there?

Cameron: A beer. Mr. M'Grath: The constable said you had a whisky and soda.

Cameron: Well, he must know better than I. (Laughter.). Mr. M'Grath: If you were sober you should know?

Cameron: That's right. I say beer. (Laughter.) Mr. M'Grath: Did you take anyone else's drink?

Cameron: No. Wo leave that for the people who go, into the sixpenny bar. The foiirpenny blokes don't do that. (Laughter.) Mr. M'Grath: Then the constable was mistaken ?

Cameron: He must have been • mixing his drinks. Mr. M'Grath: You disagree with him?'

Camerhn: Of course, he paid for the drinks, and he should have a right to express tin opinion. (Laughter.) Mr. M'Grath: I wish y'oa would ho serious. This is a serious matter.

Cameron: I -am quite serious, but vou are trying to catch me. lam telling the truth, and you can't catch

me. Mr. M'Grath' submitted that there was no case to answer. The; case was different from the Fisher case. First of all ! he raised a point that guilty knowledge had not been proved.'Three men had gone to the hotel. There was conflicting evidence as to what liquor Cameron "had had, and no evidence as to what the other civilian had. fore no one could say that intoxicating liquor was sold to them. Then there was no offence under the regulations unless it was established that' the police officer purchasing the-liquor "committed or intended-.t0., commit" ah offence. Ih'the policeman : had«not, committed an offence, the defendant could not be convicted, and it had been held by the Supreme Court that a policeman performing work of this kind did not commit an offence. In the witness-box M'Garry said that she had never knowingly permitted' "shouting" since it was banned. She was a widow, with one child, and bartending was her sole means of earning a livinw. She was once licensee of a hotel near Nelson. If sift permitted "shoutim;" on the occasion' in question she did not do so knowinglv. She had done licr best to have the law observed. Kate M'Enroe; daughter of the. licensee of the Britannia, -deposed that M'Garrv was very reliable and trustworthy." She knew of no case in which defendant had permitted "shouting. Decision was reserved. Other anti-shouting cases were adjourned till Tuesday.