CLOSING THE BARS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 145, 16 December 1913, Page 8

CLOSING THE BARS

WAS THE ORDER VALID? FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS. The attention of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., was occupied for some time todiiy in the hearing of a case in which the police proceeded against Fanny Pool, licensee of the Empire Hotel, on the ground of alleged disobedience of an order issued for the closing of the hotel on 22nd November owing to the disturbed state of the city in consequence of the strike. Mr. T. Young appeared for the defendant. Forma-l evidence as to the issue of notices closing the notels owing to th© existing state of unrest was given by the Mayor (Mr. J. P. Luke) and tho Town Clerk (Mr. J. R. Palmer). Charles Eggie gave evidence of having served the notice to close on 22nd November on a clerk in the office of the hotel, in the temporary absence of the licensee. Evidence was given by Sergeant Kelly of a visit to the hotel on the afternoon of the day in question. He said that he found all the bars locked except the private or "house" bar at the back of the premises, where there were five men drinking. In reply to a suggestion by Mr. Young, his Worship said he was not inclined ;to dismiss the information on the ground that the licensee had not been personally served with the notice. Mr. Young contended that, altogether apart from the question of whether the order to close the hotels was a good or bad order, there was really no order at all, as the Justices made no order. What the Justices did was merely to sign a number of blank forms, which were afterwards filled in by a clerk and then treated as if they were orders made by Justices on enquiry. Then, again, the order was not proved, as the original had not been produced, and, although the "boarders' " bar was open, there was no evidence that the hotel was "open" for the sale of liquor. His Worship, in reserving his decision, said it^was an open question whether the notice was sufficient or not. INNKEEPER'S ADMISSION. A similar charge, in respect of 20th November, was preferred against Daniel Buckley, licensee of the Foresters' Arms Hotel m Ghuznee-Btreet. Mr. T. Young appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty, but admitted the receipt of the notice to close, and th© fact that the side door of the -hotel was open, as he was under the impression that all he was required to do was to close the front of his premises. The evidence was on the lines of that given in the previous case. Inspector Hendrey read a signed admission by the defendant that he had kept open the hotel, and had sold liquor, and that he intended to plead guilty when the charge was brought against him. Mr. Young admitted the facts as stated, basing his defence on th© question of the validity of tho order. Decision was reserved in this case also. In a similar case against J. J. Firth, licensee of the City Hotel, in respect of 25th November, Mr. A. W. Blair entered a plea of not guilty. The evidence of th© Mayor, Town Clerk, and the server of the notice on the defendant's wife was admitted ; also that when tho ' police came there were several people in a private bar. Mr. Blair sought a dismissal of the information on the ground that the original order to close had not been produced. H© contended that the circumstances might sustain a charge of selling liquor, but not of keeping th© hotel open for the sale of liquor. Mr. Blair adopted the , argument of Mr. Young in previous 'cases, and decision was reserved. , FOUND ON THE PREMISES. In the cases of the men found on the premises of the Empire and Wellington Hotels, Mr. J. J. M'Grath contended that they had a pood defence in law. He contended that it could only be an offence if the men were on the premises' during times when the hotels were closed "as required by the Act" not "in pursuance of the Act." The times when th© Act required the hotels to be closed were only between 10 p.m.' and 6 a.m., also on Sundays, Good' Friday, and Christmas Day. His Worship said that there appeared to be something in counsel's argument, but he was not prepared to decide the point at once. Satisfactory explanations were forthcoming in cases against William Moore, Charles Ward, and Charles Latham, and similar informations against them were dismissed.