LICENSING LAW

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 145, 22 June 1922, Page 8

LICENSING LAW

ALLEGED BREACHES AT UPPER HUTT.

As the result of a visit paid by the police to the Provincial Hotel, Upper Hutt, on 27th May, seventeen charges were heard by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the local Court yesterday. William Pritchard, Manson M'Nab, Michael Black, William John Paul, Henry Bengo, Job Henry Mabey, Arthur V. Geangc, William Edwards, William Robertson, Pcrvical Whiteman, William Hawker, Anthony Basil Hausley, and Frank Henry were each charged with being found on the licensed premises of the Provincial Hotel at a time when such premises are directed to be closed.

Thomas Quinn, the licensee of the hotel, was charged with: (1) Opening the premises for the sale of liquor at a time when such premises arc directed to be closed; (2) selling liquor (two informations) ; and (3) exposing liquor for sale. . . ;

Senior-Sergeant Bird conducted the case for tho prosecution, and said thaton Saturday, 27th May, in company with .Constables Holmes, Scarry, and Anderson, he arrived at the hotel at 9.5 p.m. and found the main door open, and on entering the premises found three men in the sitting-room, one being a boarder. The licensee came out of the bar and locked it. The sergeant stated his desire to enter the bar, and on entering found the rear portion ' full of men, some of whom were drinking, others had" half-empty glasses before them, and others empty glasses. The counter was strewn with glasses, and bottles of liquor were also standing upon it. The bar was full of tobacco-smoke', and was lit up by means of a hurricane lamp. Neither the licensee nor any of the men made any excuse for being there. He took the names and addresses of those present, and then ordered them out of the bar, one of the men remarking: "Well, sergeant, there is no harm in us having another drink now we are here."

Evidence in support of the prosecution was gjs'en by each member of the police party?*'

For the defence Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for all the defendants, said that the facts outlined by the police would not be greatly disputed, the difference being in the inference to be drawn from the facts. The defence in: regard to Hansley and Henry, who were, found in the sitting-room, was that they were there quite unknown to the licensee, and as guests of one Tinker, a boarder \ at the hotel. In regard to the others: found on the premises, and Quinn, the licensee, the defence was that the whole party had gradually congregated outside the hotel, where they had been discussing a unique series of three' football victories won by the Upper Hutt Club that day, several of the party being closely identified with the football club. The culmination of the discussion was a request to Quinn, the licensee,' who was president of tho club, to "turn it on," which, after a while, he consented to do. The contention was therefore that tho party was in the bar as guests and at the invitation of the licensee—a quito ltjjvl position. The defence denied the police statement that some of the party had glasses in their hands, that a whisky bottle was on the counter, or that two glasses contained freshly-drawn stout. The explanation of the empty g!»sses was that they had remained unwashed from Saturday afternoon, and that the two glasses contained stale stout, also from the afternoon. It was denied that a man had used the words "another drink,"- and it was affirmed that the words used were: "Can't we have & drink now we are here?"

Thomas Quinn, licensee of the hotel, and several of the men charged with being found on the premises, corroborated the statements submitted in the defence.

The Magistrate said that to give judgment without having first very carefully rend over all the evidence ivi#ild not be fair to either party. Ho, therefore, reserved his judgment, which will be given in Wellington.