Police Court.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6127, 20 April 1891, Page 3

Police Court.

(Before Mr G. A. Preece, R.M.)

... A CASB FOB THK PBOHIBITIONIBTB. Bpsire Vers --hafelt was charged that by exeS drinking he greatly injured bis Wtn and disturbed the peace and happi- - _J? pl&tSo.der was prayed for by his Wi The defendant did not put in an appearan The RM. granted an order, to have effect in the Napier and surrounding iSnsing districts for twelve months. ALLEGED STJNDAT, TBADINU-. ' Robert Smith, licensee of the Masonic Hnt«l was charged with having allowed Honor (bS) to be consumed on his premises outhe 12th April last, by persons not bom appeared forthe defendant, tS CutfS that tbisprosecution 1 _rose out of the case heard recently before I His Worship, wbcntwo persons were charged I drunkenness on a certain Sundae _ . I At counsel's request the R M. agreed to I refer to the evidence taken by him on MonI lasr. in the cases of drunkenness heard I before him then. 1 „_,_._. I *\ Tohn McQuillan deposed he was a laborer I aid resided at Hastings. Last Saturday I S>: he came into Napier and lodged at the I Provincial Hotel. Kn e w the defendant, Is who the Masonic Hotel. On tne Sunl^r^ e o=niS:i3 s ■ '«f an hour afterwards they again ■ when the bar was open. Mr *f™ n , ■ . behind tha bar. Asked for a* shandy __ r,a„''--lemonade and beer-for nimseir, ■ __d beer fTC.nnor. The liquor wa..drunk ■ by them ;he paid the barman one shilling ■ forthe drinks. They went out into the ■ Sroet, returning to the Masonic later on ■ fl.three or foSr drinks were o^djo^by l S^ D CoSor:tdt=f.%& ■ JSSrfce drinks barman dd ■ _ 8 k him whether he was lodging in tne ■ house, or a bom fide traveller, nor did tfiey ■ r _ t a Vne 6 L TeT morSit ■ of going to the bar,and having drinks. , . ■->/ To Mr. Cornford : When, they, went in a ■ second time it was about ten minute* or a ■ quarter of an hour after the "«/'*• They hadn't been to any house in l"- " ■ terval. Only m.de t,-o visits to the Maso.no ■ Jer dii-iks that morning. Visited -.we ouu-i 'hotel besides tho Provincial, Clarendon, an-i ' Jfclasonic; had a drink at that other .bou-je, a'"shandv-gu_," and up to the time no " was arrested 'hud had four gl-uses ot <'.fjh*ndy-#u_." vVas arrested about t'tfJtpart ten'in the morning, and was liberate!-! at'half-punt ftv. in tho afiernuou. Had had nothing before be left the Provincial in the morning; had a medium " shandy-gaff ■on each occasion. Ooitßvr was n.t witii .him on any other occasion u,l't;?r ho lclt the ManOli'U' Hotel. James Connor, who wanted to know tyuo Tvas- going to. pay hU t>_.ptsii*'i>, and was, .consoled as to this important point, dep^a on the evening.of the 11th he lodged ».t the Jltscmiit Hotel, On tbe following

remembered meeting McQuillan, and they both went to the Clarendon Hotel. They had a drink there, and then went to the Musonic ; they bad called there previously, but it wasn't open. They were served with drinks at the Masonic, which were banded

to them by the 'barman ; had a pint of beer. r Hi.H mate had "shandy-gaff," the liquor a was drank ; whs oertuiu he (witness) didn't pay for the drinks Later on they again uiviled at the Manonic, and ha»( drinks a : seuiiud time. Had a pint of beer igrain and 5 his mate the same as before. Another mau l named. Tayloi also had a drink. Hergeant Cu'len • L>id you represent that < you were a bona fide traveller? [ Witness: h,h ? [ Serjeant Oullen : Were you asked whether you lodged at the hotel ? Witness: No. How could Ido that ; its too dear. ' Sergeant: Did you give information to 1 the police ? Witness : No, T did not. Mr Cornford : What other house did you i go to thiit morning ? Witness : Must 1 tell the truth ? Counsel: Certainly. Witnese : Certainly. Well, I'll tell you. I went to the Albion Hotel. I now re- , member I stated lart Monday that I went into the Criterion Hotel. I never went into the Criterion at all; nevr set foot there. At the Albion we had dr'nes. Counsel: You had four drinks? Witness : Yes ; a pint of beer each time. Counsel: Was McQuillan drunk ? Witness: I don't know, but I had enough not to knock about with on a Sunday morning. i C uusel: Why Sunday morning? If it had been on any other morning it would not have mattered ? Witness: Not a bit. I'would have knocked about a little longer. I was not unsteady;' I think I looked after that, or I mWht have been arrested. ■To the Sergeant: Did not remember who served them at the Albion HoteX William Perrin deposed he had been employed at the Masonic Hotel'for nearly five years'.-' Was not supposed to serve on Sundays, and did not serve at all on Sunday, unless a boarder or traveller' came in: Knew whether a person who came in for liquor was a lona fide traveller or not by asking him. Was in the bar on Sunday morning in question, and saw Connor and McQuillan at the Masonic bar on that day. Served McQuillan with two drinks, but at the time of serving Connor was not there ; Connor was outside in the passage, and

came in by the bar afterwards. McQuillan paid for the liquor. McQuillan had come from Hastings. Connor and McQuillan did not cornea second time to the best of'his knowledge. .';".;. Sergeant: What do you mean be " the best of my knowledge P" • '' ' - Counsel ■:: The prosecution forget that they are dealing with their Own witness. Sergeant: The witness is summoned from tho opposite camp Counsel: Very likely ;" to my know-' ledge" is a fair and proper answer. ; Witness: • Remembered seeing Taylor ; McQuillan paid for the liquor, and he put the money in tho till. It was against his instructions to serve liquor on Sundays. Had a key to the bar, aud he could serve liquor without the knowledge of Mr Smith. Mr Smith knew tbe.amount of money in the till each morning that was left in from the previous night; therefore, if there was anything added to that amount, Mr Smith w> uld know of it; he would know that the added money either came-from lodgers or travellers. To Mr Corn ford : Was only employed for week-day work, aud was supposed to tidy th- bit'on the Saturday night, but somehow hadn't time then, aud straightened it on the Sunday morning. When _cQ tillan called 'hat morning he said he came from

Hastings, i here was no lifting window or ltdge on which glasses could be put in the bar. Did not usually me Mr Smith on Sunday m rniug. Usmiliy went in the bar between six and half-past iv the mornings, and it was on account of the t.a ly hour he went into the bar that he had a duplicate key. To the Sergeant: There was no lifting ledge, but a large counter. Sergeant: You are only fencing. lam ssking you wMi reference to the half-door where there is a little room adjoining the bar. Witness: There is such an arrangement that men can stand their glasses oh. Hergeant: How are you paid ? Witness : I'm paid by the week. Ssrgeant : How much ? Counsel: The witness is not obliged to answer that question. Sergeant: You're not obliged to attend to the bar on Sundays. Witness : No. Sergeant: You are not paid for it ? ' Witness: No. ; Sergeant: You're very generous. .Witness : Yes. ' This closed the evidence, and the Sergeant handed in various authorities on the matter. Mr Cornford addressed the Court at L-ngth on behalf of the defendant. He contended that the case must be dismissed. Perrin; who had been engaged for years, knew the Jaw, and whatever might havo been done by him by over generosity it could not be presumed that it haa Mr Smith's connivance and authority. He quoted authorities in support. Perrin was not in charge at the time, and the case could not stand. He would call the defendant, who would state that Perrin was not his barman on Sundays Robert Smith, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, deposed he had never had any trouble of this sort before, and always found the barman trustworthy and competent. Perrin hada duplicate key of the bar to allow him to get in early. He (witness) was in charge of the bar on Sundays, or else Mrs Smith. The barman was not required to attend the bar on Sundays. He,had heard Sergeant Oullen say that if Perrin didn't attsnd to the bar on Sundays he would lose bis billet, but Perrin was not required to attend that day at all, so long as the bar was in order by eight o'clock those mornings. Gave him instructions about supplying liquor on Sundays, and on some occasions had told him to put some people out who bad no business to be there. Two pounds of change was left in the till 'on Saturday, 11th. To Sergeant Gulieii:' Psrrin went to the bar on Sunday mornings to do up his bar Relieved Perrin after'twelve, when he (witness) attended to the wants of the lodgers. The bar could be-done on Saturdays, but usually the barman was too tired on Saturday evenings to clean up the bar, aud so come to do that work on the following morning. Would not swear that the barman had served well-known residents on Sundays with liquor ; it never occurred to him until this, to think what the barman did Sunday mornings. A good deal of money was in the till on Sunday*-from lodirers. Could not say whether Perrin was in the bar on the morning iv question ; never came down till late. Tbe witness was cross-examined by the Sergeant, as to what he might have done had respectable rersous come into the batto be supplied with liquor. The Sergeant persisted in the question, the witness, not giving, what apparently appeared to him, satisfactory answers IMr Corn ford said tho Serif rant was attempting to extort confessions of. guilt ; why didu't he do it properly, and not twist and turn in a sinuous way ; in a manner that was disgraceful. Thd witness was further cross-examined The R.M. said he would give judgment on Thur-'lliy morning. Two other cases of alleged Sunday trading against Thomas Peddie, of the Claieudon Hotel, and Patrick Gorman, of the Criterion Hotel, were adjourned till Thursday I The Court then adjourned.