LICENSING CASES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 244, 9 July 1921, Page 12

LICENSING CASES

SUPPLYING LIQUOR AFTER HOURS BOARDER FINED £5 In tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., William Beveridge, licensee of the Occidental Hotel, was charged with selling liquor after hours, and Thomas Beveridge was charged with supplying liquor to Bertram Vile after hours. Sub-In-spector Willis appeared for the police and Mr. M. Myers for the two defendants. Tho oases were taken together. Martin Keevil, porter, said that he had been in the employ of William Beveridge, licensee of Hhe Occidental Hotel. On June 16 ho went on duty ut 6.30 p.m, and in his capacity as porter , he served dxinks at about twenty minutes to 10 p.m. He was told by Tom Beveridge to take the drink up to Mr. Vile. IVitness took the liquor as ordered and received 2s. 9d. Vile drank the whisky and put the bottle of stout in • his pocket. Witness put the 2s. 9d. into tire till, but there was some dispute and Tom Beveridge accused witness of only putting Is. 9d. in the till. Witness did not know who V ile was then, but he knew now that he wae in the motorcar business. Vile was not a boarder. Witness answered the bell, and if, liquor was ordered 1 he got the liquor from the licensee, or if tho licensee was not available witness procured it himself from the bar. Witness was porter at the hotel from April 12 till June 16. Sergeant Whit ehouse said that on June 18 he interviewed 1 tho licenses, William Beveridge, who gave him particulars of the engagement of the ;x>rter Keevil and the termination of the engagement. . For the defence, Mr. Myers eaid that Thomas Beveridge had no authority to supply the liquor. . Thomas Beveridge was in the employ of Laery, Beveridge and Co. as town traveller, and lived with his brother at Kelburn. This brother was at present out of New Zea- ' land, and Thomas was living tempo- t rai-ily with his other brother at ths Occidental Hotel, but was in no way employed, in the hotel. On the evening in question the licensee, William Beveridge, was upstairs, and this man Vila camo in. Vile was engaged in tho motor trade and was a friend of Thomas Beveridge. Vile wanted a drink, and Tom said he would get it for him. Tom went into the bar (which was open, os the cleaner was at work there) got the liquor, and told the porter to take it to Mr Vile. The licensee was in his own sitting-room and knew nothing about the matter. Mr. Myers said that it was only fair to the porter to say that his evidence was perfectly correct; Thomas Beveridge had no authority whatever to supply the liquor. He won in no way employed by tho licensee. There were previous occasions when Thomas had been requested to look after the hotel while the licensee was at the theatre, and on such, occasions he had some authority, but at no time did h° have a general authority to supply liquor to boarders or to anybody else. Thomas Beveridge gave evidence in support of counsel’s statement, and William Beveridge, the licensee, gave corroborative evidence. His Worship said that he would reserve his decision in respect to the licensee, and fine Thomas Bov-exidgo J-5 end costs 19a. SUPPLYING YOUTHS WITH LIQUOB. Mabel Brooking, barmaid at the Carlton Hotel, wag charged with supplying liquor to James Doull, a youth under tho age of 21 years, and with supplying liquor to G. T. Saunders, also under 21 years of age. Fred. Brough, licensee of the Carlton Hotel, was charged with tho same offences. Sub-Inspector Willis appeared for the police, and. Mr. J. J. M'Gratli for the defendants. The barmaid pleaded guilty to beta charges. , The facts were that when a sergeant and a constable visited the hotel t they found the two lads at the bar. One was just over 18 years of age and the other about 20 years. One was drinking a long shandy and the other a When questioned, the Barmaid admitted, that she had served the two lads Brough tho licensee, pleaded not guiltv and Mr. M’Grath said there was neither knowledge nor connivance on the part of the licensee. The llct '“® e had taken every care and precaution. He had been very insistent in warning his barmaid that she was not to commit any offence against the licensing law Mr M’Grath admitted that the licensee was responsible for the acts of his servants, but said that the licensee had donv everything possible to prevent such Defendants were fined 50 s - oa each of the two charges.