HOTELKEEPER FINED

Evening Star, Issue 22596, 13 March 1937, Page 10

HOTELKEEPER FINED

BREACH Of LICENSING ACT SALE 0F LMWR AFTER NIURS The hearing was concluded in the Police Court yesterday afternoon of the case in which Albert Thomas Ross, licensee of the Henley Hotel, was charged with five breaches of the Licensing Act. Senior Sergeant Packer conducted the prosecution, and Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to charges of supplying liquor to a person under the age of 21 years (two counts), selling liquor after hours, exposing liquor for. sale after hours, and keeping his premises open after hours. Frank Tye, who was with the party from Milton that'visited the hotel, said that he could not .swear whether or not he saw the licensee on the night of the alleged offence. The party had several drinks in the passage at the slide opening into the bar. There were two men behind the bar counter, but he did not know them. , "William Robertson Ramsay, aged 19 years,,gave corroborative evidence. Sergeant Boulton stated that he took four of the young men to the Henley Hotel on January 15 to see if they could identify anyone in the hotel who had served them. The licensee stated to him that he had not served drinks to any of the party on the night of January J 6. Each of the young men had said that he could not identify the defendant or his barman as the man who had supplied them with liquor. • Mr Hanlon asked that the magistrate dismiss the two charges of selling liquor to, persons under the age of 21 years on the ground that the two young men had not been proved to bo under that age. It had been a practice for courts not to accept only birth certificates as proof of age. Somebody must appear to give corroborative evidence and identify the persons. As for the other charges, they were based on a class of evidence not frequently seen in court. Some of the witnesses had lied, and it was not right that the licensee could be convicted on the evidence of five young larrikins who presumably knew that they were wrong in going’ to the hotel. __ The charges should be supported by reliable witnesses. He asked that the charges should be dismissed. Senior Sergeant Packer stated that the production of the birth certificate was the usual means of proving age. He would not object to the first two informations being dismissed. The Magistrate said that it had not strictly been proved that the persons wore under the age of 21 years, so the two relative charges would be dismissed. Regarding the other charges, there were discrepancies in the evidence as to what happened while the men were in the hotel, but he must taka the evidence generally to show whether the charges were proved. He was satisfied that liquor was supplied and that drinks had been served at the bar and in tbe front room. The witnesses were unable to identitv the licensee or the barman as men who had ■erred them bn the night in question. The licensee was in the hotel, however, end liquor was supplied,. and the licensee was the only person in possession of the bar room keys.. He must, therefore, have supplied the drinks. The defendant must .be convicted on the charge of selling liquor after hours Mr Hanlon said that the defendant, had previously borne a good reputation ns an hotelkeeper, and it would be realised that the Henley Hotel was a very difficult one to conduct The defendant was fined £o on the charge of selling liquor after hours and ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses (£S Is) and court costs (£1 10s).. The remaining two charges were dismissed.