A CHRISTMAS DRINK

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 19, 24 January 1929, Page 6

A CHRISTMAS DRINK

NOT A BONA FIDE LODGER

CONVICTIONS ENTERED

A Christmas morning drink which Charlie Moody and Robert 'Thonifis Evuus Mustard had in the bar of the Central Hotel, Petono, resulted in the appearance in. the Petone Magistrate's Court yesterday of tho two men on charges of being found on licensed premises during closing hours, and of the barman, Herbert John Carroll, who was charged with selling liquor after hours, exposing liquor for salo after hours, and .with,unlawfully supplying liquor, being a person other than the licensee. Tho licensee, Albert Charles AVright, who did not appear, was charged with unlawfully soiling and exposing liquor for sale and with unlawfully opening tho premises for tho salo of liquor. Mr. J. Scott entered pleas of not guilty on behalf of all the defendants, and all the cases were heard together. Constable M.M'Nulty stated that at about 9 a.m. on Christmas Day he visited the private bar of tho Central Hotel and there found Mustard and Moody with two pint measures on the counter in front of them which they admitted had contained liquor. Behind the bar was tho defendant Carroll, who admitted having supplied the drinks. Moody said he had "shouted" the drinks and had slept in tho hotel tho previous night. He claimed that ho was a lodger there and so was entitled to drinks. Mustard's reason for being on tho premises was that Moody had invited him in for a drink. The door of the bar was open, and the contents exposed to the t>vo men. Later, Moody signed a written statement to the police (produced in Court) to tho effect that ho had spent the previous night (Christmas Eve) at a boarding-house where he resided, and not in the hotel. Ho had booked a room for the night in the hotel, but did not stay there. Constable M'Nulty said that he regarded Carroll as the manager of the hotel in the absence of the licensee, Wright, who was ill.

For tho defence, Mr. Scott submitted that Moody was in fact a bona fide lodger. Living at a boarding-house, ho decided that he would spend Christmas at the Central. He booked his room there for Christmas Evo and was seen there about 8 p.m. by Carroll. Carroll left tho hotel then and saw nothing of Moody till next morning. Moody would swear that he had slept at tho hotel that night, while Mustard was there as Moody's guest. Tho sale was made to Moody and if Moody was a boarder tho salo was lawful. There was no evidence that Mustard had applied for or paid for any liquor. As for tho opening of tho bar for the sale there could bo no conviction on that account, if Moody could be proved a boarder. There could be no charge against tho licensee even if it was held that Moody was not a boarder. Wright was in indifferent health, and ' the actual' management of the hotel was with Mrs. Wright. Carroll was barman only, and had no status as manager. If he sold liquor out of hours it was distinctly against the orders of the licensee. Mrs. Emma Wright, wife of the licensee, gave evidence. Carroll's position was that of barman and ho had no right to servo any lodger out of hours. On Christmas Evo Carroll had given witness 5s for bed and breakfast for Moody. Herbert John Carroll, tho barman, m his evidence said that he had served Moody and Mustard thinking them to be a boarder and his friend. Elizabeth M'Gowan, keeper of the boardinghouse, stated definitely that Moody did not sleep at the boardinghouse on Christmas Eve. Mustard then gave evidence.' Moody, in the svitness-box, swore that he had stayed on Christmas Eve at tho Central 'Hotel and not at ihc boarding-house, as ao bad said in the written statement to the police. Questioned by Senior-Sergeant E. J. M'Keivey, as to why his signed statement was at variance with.his present evidence. Moody said that he was confused when he signed the- statement. The Magistrate (Mr. T. B. M'Neil) said that as Moody now swore that he slept in tho hotel, he could not understand how he had signed a statement on Chrsitmas morning admitting that he had slept at the boarding-house. The Magistrate said he was of tho opinion that Moody had slept at the board-ing-house. Although tho defendant had booked a room at tho hotel, he was not a lodger in tho accepted sense of the term. Of this tho Magistrate was satisfied by all tho circumstances of the case. Mustard, he thought, was probably innocent in the matter, and he would bo convicted and discharged, while Moody would bo convicted and fined £2. The barman, Carroll, would be convicted of illegally selling liquor and fined £10. Regarding the licensee, Wright, the Magistrate was satisfied that ho was ill and that his wife was carrying on the business. Although Carroll aid not refer the matter to her at all, he thought the licensee was responsible for Carroll's act. Wright was accordingly convicted of selling liquor and ordered to pay costs. Tho two other charges against Wright and tho two others against Carroll were withdrawn.