UNUSUAL CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 220, 13 June 1936, Page 18

UNUSUAL CHARGE

Story of a “Square-Rigger” of Beer MAGISTRATE’S COURT On the unusual charge of aiding and abetting some person unknown in the offence of supplying him with liquor when he was not lawfully entitled to obtain it, Frederick William Russell appeared before Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court yesterday. “The facts in this case are somewhat unusual, and call for an unusual charge,” said Sub-Inspcctor C. E. Roach. It appeared that about 7.20 p.m. on April 27, defendant went to the Shamrock Hotel and knocked on the door. He stood on the footpath for a few minutes, and then went back to the door, which opened. He took a small parcel from under his arm and handed it to someone inside. After some time the door again opened, an arm appeared, and handed something to defendant, who put it under his arm. When defendant was accosted by the police, he was found to be in possession of a bottle of beer. A sergeant of police stated that when he accosted the man after he had left the hotel door, he said he had a ■ square-rigger of beer. He had got it from a friend called Nealson, who lived about four doors down from Hawkestone Street He had not been near the hotel at all, he said. The police went to his friend’s address, continued witness. Nealson admitted he was a friend of Russell’s. The latter often left -beer at the house, as his wife objected to his taking it home with him. But Russell had not been there that night, he said; he had not seen him since he went home from work. Cross-examined by Mr. G. A. Wylie, who appeared for the defence, the sergeant agreed that if the beer had been handed out of the hotel, it might have been supplied by a boarder or anyone else, not necessarily the licensee. The licensee of the hotel had denied supplying liquor to Russell. Describing it as “a speculative sort of case,” Mr. Wylie submitted that the onus of proving who supplied the liquor was on the police. It was asking too much, and' going beyond the law as it stood at present, to expect a man to answer such a charge. He submitted that there' was actually no charge to answer. “Under the Licensing Act the fact of beer being carried away from an hotel is itself evidence of sale,” said Sub-Inspector Roach. As the police did not know who supplied the liquor, they had to charge Russell with aiding and abetting some person unknown to them.

On oath, Russell denied going to the hotel door and knocking, giving or receiving a parcel, or obtaining beer there.

“Do you think a police sergeant and a constable would make up the story they have told —deliberately trump up the charge against you?” asked the subinspector. “There may have been another man there,” replied accused. “I am satisfled the prosecution has established its case,” said the magistrate, after hearing further evidence. He reserved his decision to enable counsel to submit legal arguments in writing.. Breaches of Licensing Act Stanislaus John Whiteford, licensee of the Regent Hotel, was fined £2 for selling liquor to an intoxicated person, a charge of permitting drunkenness being withdrawn. Robert James Smith, barman of the Regent Hotel, was fined £4 for supplying liquor to an intoxicated person. Sub-Inspector C. E. Roach, prosecuting, said that on May 7 the police entered the hotel and saw two men, both drunk, in the public bar. One had a full “handle” of beer in front of him, the other an empty mug. The police sergeant asked the barman if he thought the men were in a fit condition to be served with liquor. He replied that he had not noticed that they were drunk. The barman had been previously convicted for supplying liquor at unauthorised times. “That was in 1931,” pointed out Mr. J. A. Scott, who appeared for Smith. “I don’t intend to pay much attention to that aspect of the case,” replied the magistrate. Mr. Scott submitted that the barman had supplied the two men with liquor in ignorance of their condition; it was difficult at times to tell when a man was drunk. He had not Noticed any vomiting on their part Smith was regarded by hotel-keepers as a reliable and solid type of barman. Mr. F. W. Ongley, who appeared for the licensee, said his client had employed a man who bore an excellent reputation as a barman. The two persons had been on the premises.only a few minutes. The licensee 'had not been neglecting his house. “P .think there is little to be said for the barman.” said the magistrate. Found on licensed premises at the Post Office Hotel qr June 3 after hours, Charles McLeod was convicted and fined £1 and costs. Charged with a similar offence at the Shamrock Hotel, Leslie Ward was convicted and fined £1 and costs. Failed to Record Overtime For failing to keep a record of overtime worked by three employees, Parim Louis, manager of the De Luxe Shoe Co., was convicted and fined £1 and costs, and for failing to allow a half-holiday £2 and costs. He pleaded guilty to each charge it being stated that the employees had worked overtime willingly and had been paid, but a record had not been entered because the girl who kept the book was not there. Other Cases For making false statements for the purpose of obtaining benefit under the Unemployment Act, William John Montgomery was fined £5 and costs; John Murdoch was fined £3 and costs on one charge, and was ordered to pay costs on another; George McKinlay was fined £5 on one charge and £2/10/- on another; Borman Olsen was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months and was ordered to make restitution of £l/8/-; and John Wallace was fined £3 on each of two charges. Alexander Jewell McKenzie was convicted and fined £1 and costs for casting offensive matter.