DRINKS FOR TWO

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 66, 11 December 1917, Page 6

DRINKS FOR TWO

"SHOUTING" ALLEGED

DEFENCE OF MISTAKEN

IDENTITY

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, James O'Hanlon, a barman at -the Royal Oak Hotel, was chaiged with having permitted treating. . He p'eni v cd not guilty, and was repiosentecl dj Mr. M. Myers. . . Constable Corcoran stated m cvidenco that at 7 p.m. on November o, in company with Constable Phillips, ho visited tho public bar of tho Royal j Oak Hotel. He was acting under instructions from the Police Departmen . They called for two drinks, and were served by the defendant. There wero two civilians at the bar, and one in vited the other to have a drink, as» ing: "Is it going to be the same. The man who was shouting put two shillings on the counter, and tho other put down one shilling. The defendant pushed back tiie shilling, ana, taking the two shillings, handed bacK one shilling and twopence. To Mr. Myers: There were two men serving in the bar, and he had never seen defendant previously. _ Inspector Marsack mentioned that witness had been employed to detect breaches of the anti-shouting regulations in various parts of the country. Witness added that he and his companion returned to tho hotel later, but did not see anything wrong. On the following Monday morning ho visitcu the hotel with Phillips and a sergeant, and saw defendant there. He said to the sergeant: "That is the man. The sergeunt siid: "There is another man like him. You had better wait Other visits were paid to the hotel that day with other sergeants. iho men whom they saw put down 2s. and Is. may'each have intended to pay tor his own drink. . Inspector Marsack: You are absolutely certain, the defendant is the man who served the drinks?

Witness: Yes. . , The inspector: If you have any doubt say so. Witness: He is the man. Mr. Myers: We shall show absolutely that he isn't. Mr. Myers said he had overwhelminn- evidence to show that 0 Haulon was not in tho bar at 7 p.m. on November 3. The case was one of mistaken identity. Counsel called James O'Hanlon, the defendant, who said that he had been employed for fourteen years at the Royal Oak Hotel, and was liead barman there. He was not in the bar at 7 p,.m. on November 3, 1 but was away laving tea. According to his instructions, one Hodonsky should have been in charge in the public bar at that time. Like himself, Hodonsky had a moustache. The case was unfinished wlien tne Court rose for tho day.