MEN FOUND AFTER HOURS

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume LXII, Issue 16, 28 February 1941, Page 3

MEN FOUND AFTER HOURS

FINES IMPOSED AT MAGIS-

TRATE'S COURT

Police visits to hotels at Leeston and Doyleston on the evening of January 25, had a sequel in the Magistrate's Court at Leeston today when a number of charges for breaches of the Licensing Act were heard.

In the case of the Leeston Hotel, the licensee, Herbert Stafford, was charged on two counts, (1) for exposing liquor for sale after hours, and (2) with being open for sale. The licensee pleaded not guilty to both counts and was represented by Mr Lyons.

The barman, Alexander Bracefield, was charged with aiding and abetting two men found in the bar with committing a breach of the act. A plea of not guilty was made and Mr Lyons appeared for him.

Constable Nesbit said that shortly after 9 o'clock on the night of January 25, he, in company with Constable Smith, visited the Leeston Hotel. They entered by the front door, which was open. ,The bar door and door to the private bar were locked. Witness knocked on the door of the private bar, which was opened by the barman, Bracefield. Witness found the bar lit up .and two men were standing behind the counter. They were Joseph Johnson and a man named Young. To Constable Nesbit they said that they had come into the hotel for a drink but had not been supplied. The barman said that they had just come in and he had not served them. Witness saw no signs of empty dirty glasses on the counter. Witness enquired for the licensee and was told he was in his room upstairs. Next day witness interviewed the licensee and informed him of what had happened. Defendant Stafford said that his instructions were that the barman should not supply anyone after hours except boarders. Everything in the bar was exposed to the two men there.

To Mr Lyons: The hotel was well conducted; in fact all in his district were we.ll conducted. He did not see the two men go into the premises and did not know how long they had been there.

Constable Smith, of Southbridge, who accompanied Constable Nesbit on this visit, gave evidence which was similar to that of the previous witness.

To Mr Lyons: The barman said that he ihad not served the men. The barman had his sleeves rolled up but he could see no cleaning utensils on the side of the bar where the police were.

The defendant, Alexander Bracefield, said that on the night of the police visit, he was scrubbing out the bar. He left the room for a few minutes, leaving the door unlatched. He was going about his duties when two men came in! He told .them that they had no right to be there and to leave. Then the police entered. The men told the police that they liad not been served with liquor and defendant also said that 'he had not supplied them with liquor. He would have had time to serve them with liquor before the police came in, if he had wanted to, but did not do so. He told them to get out as he knew they were not boarders. Defendant said that his cleaning gear was on the other side of the bar to that where the police were standing.

To Constable Nesbit: The door of the bar was not locked. The men came in after defendant had re-, [turned to the bar. To Mr Lyons: The men shut the door. | , The magistrate found the defendant Bracefield guilty of the charge against 'him and the licensee of exjposure of liquor for sale after hours. The second count was with-

drawn. The barman was fined 20/- and 10/- costs and the licensee £2 and costs. Mr Young added that evidently the licensee had been conducting his hotel well for some years and was not present at the

time the breach was committed

The men found on the premises at the time of the visit of the police were then charged with being found on licensed premises after hours. They were George Harper, Daniel Bohan, Joseph Johnson, and Leslie Young. None of the defendants appeared in court.

Constable Smith stated that Young and Johnson were found in the bar. Bohan was seen in a passage way and said that he 'had no excuse to offer. The other man was found in the commercial room and .said that he had come to see the barman, but did not mention the business he wanted him for.

They were convicted and each was fined 20/- and ordered to pay 10/----costs.