IN A BAR PARLOUR

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 36, 14 February 1929, Page 12

IN A BAR PARLOUR

AN UPPER HUTT CASE

CUSTOMERS AFTER HOURS

That there had been practised a system o£ after-hour trading which" was assisted by the manner in which the lights were situated and controlled in the hotel was the statement made by Sergeant J. W. M'Holin in the Upper Hutt Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Henry Marshall, the licensee of the Provincial Hotel, Upper Hutt, was charged with allowing liquor to be consumed after hours,- exposing liquor for sale after hours, and aiding and abetting the offence of being found on licensed premises after hours.

Counsel for the defendant (Mr.. A. J. llazeugarb) objected to the sergeant's statement, holding that the charges being dealt with related to .one date only. .

Sergeant jU'Holm stated that on the evening of loth December last, at 9.40 o'clock" he and Constables Joss arid Griffiths visited the Provincial Hotel, each entering by different doors. Sis nion rushed out of the bar parlour. They were stopped and taken back into tho room, which was in darkness. The lighting of this room was controlled by a switch in the private sitting-room. The licensee was found in the passage and appeared to have come, from the back entrance. Asked by the witness why the men were on the premises, the licensee demurred at first. Witness found a Email slide open between the bar parlour where the men were and the bar. There was also a large slide closed, inside of which were seventeen or eighteen glasses, some full, some partially full, and some empty, and a decanter of whisky. Later the licensee Marshall said to witness: "Now that I'm caught, I don't mind telling you that I only trade with locals—men that can afford to drink." The lights,in the bar were also controlled from the private sitting-room upstairs. The six men found on the premises had since been convicted and lined on that account.

Constable R. Griffiths gave evidence. From the back ya»d of the hotel he could see a light shining from the bar parlour and could hear talking. The light was suddenly extinguished and the men rushed out. After the police had secured the men, witness climbed into the bar through the slide. Except for the slide the bar was locked.

Constable C. Joss was the next witness. He said that lie had seen Marshall, the licensee, rush upstairs soon after witness entered the hotel.. .

. For the defence, Mr. A. J. Mazengarb said that however suspicious the circumstances, there had been no sale of liquor, and no exposing for sale. A few minutes before the arrival of the police Marshall was in the bar with the lights on. The lights were observable from tl»e front and the side of the premises. Marshall was in the bar to serve two boarder*, after finishing which he turned out. the lights and went into the street in front of the hotel, where he stood ■ talking for a few minutes, and then went to the rear, of the premises. He went in the. back door of the hotel, and from then on there was "no dispute about the facts. Counsel said that he would like to comment upon one or two points in the police case. The position of the light in the bar parlour was such that had the slide into the bar been open and trading going on the light must have been observable from the front and side' of the premises, which was not the case. Counsel also contended that if not absolutely impossible in the time, it was evidence of a very quick wit for the licensee to have collected the glasses, locked the bar, and got out to switch off the lights in the way alleged. He proposed to prove that Marshall had left the bar prior to the police raid. The exposure of the liquor in the bar through the small slide was accidental, and it was certainly not a case of exposure for sale.

A boarder at the hotel stated that he ■md another boarder had had drinks from Marshall in the bar at 9.10 p.m. They were in the bar parlour and had the drinks throxigh the small slide. • :■ The defendant, Henry Marshall, said that after serving the two boarders between 9 and 9.30, he went out on the front footpath. After standing there he went round to the back, and when ho entered the hotel again through" the back door, the police were there. He had not been in the bar or upstairs in the interval. He had no knowledge of the men being on the premises, for they were not in the bar when he left, and the anteroom was in absolute darkness.

Evidence was . given by K. S. Geange that while walking towards the post office (which is just opposite the hotel) he saw the police arrive and enter the hotel. After posting his letter he saw Marshall on the other side of the road talking on the footpath.

The Magistrate (Mr. T. B. M'Neil, 5.31.) said that there must be a conviction. There was sworn evidence, unshaken in any way, that Constable Joss saw the licensee rush upstairs and very shortly' afterwards the licensee cuuie in at the back door. The Magistrate said he had inspected the premises and thought it QHife possible for a dexterous person to accomplish what in his opinion had happened. It was extraordinary that there were six men iv a dark room for no reason. Ho thought that all the circumstances ■ tended to show that they were there. for liquor, and he held that there had been a sale. "He was, satisfied that there had been exposure for sale, as anyone could see the liquor by looking through the slide.

Ifioi" exposing liquor lor sale Marshall was convicted and fined £10; for allowing liquor to be consumed he was convicted and ordered to pay costs; and on the charge of aiding others in- the commission of an offence he was convicted and fined £2.

The Magistrate suggested that it would bo in the licensee's own interests if hg had the switches altered so that the lighting in the bar might be controlled from the bar.