LIQUOR IN DUNCE HALL

Evening Star, Issue 23817, 22 February 1941, Page 8

LIQUOR IN DUNCE HALL

LAW OPENLY FLOUTED SHARP COMMENT FROM BENCH [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, February 21. “ Counsel for the defendant has inferred that this is not a deliberate breach of the law. 1 have said deliberate’ was not the word. t it was not strong enough. We should haio to use the term ‘ brazen ’ for such an attempt to flout the law. I think it is more appropriate,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, 6.M., in the Magistrates Court to-day after evidence had been heard against William Albert W ilson, manager of the Crow’s Nest Club, who pleaded guilty to three charges of allowing liquor to be consumed in a dance hall, and not guilty to one or allowing liquor to be consumed in a restaurantBETTER CLOSED. “ The defendant says that if his place is considered by the law to be a restaurant and he is convicted, he will have to close up the business coin tinued the magistrate. “On the evidence, it would he very much better for the community if this place should go out of business and be closed. “ xhe spirit of lawlessness and of getting round and breaking the law at the present time, arid for some time past,” His Worship said, “ has been serious, and is becoming more serious. When we have laws winch arc openly flouted and people think it is clever that they can flout the law, it is a verv dangerous thing in the community. This and similar offences under the Gaming Act are probably- more responsible than anything else for the large increase in juvenile crime at the present time.” . , Wilson was convicted on all charges and fined £2O on oath of three, and convicted and discharged on the fourth. Security for appeal was fixed in the case of a charge of permitting liquor to bo drunk in a restaurant. 'POLICE BEER STOLEN. Constable J. S. N. Guthrie said that on December 22 and op December 2b he and another constable, with two women partners, went to the club, on the first occasion arriving at midnigh: and leaving at 3.45 a.m. They (paid £1 for admission on the first occasion, and were shown to a table, one of about 45. A small portion of the floor was set aside for dancing. A waiter brought them four glasses and a bottle opener, and.they ordered supper and continued dancing until about 2.30. About two-thirds of the tables wore occupied, witness said, and at some of the tables there was liquor, comprising (beer, whisky, and gin. They brought with them a bottle of beer and one of port wine, which they put on the table. They went away for a dance, and when they came back the bottle of beer was gone, so the wine was opened, and each had a small quantity. On the second occasion, they did not take liquor with them. {The general conduct of the patrons was that some of them were in various stages of intoxication. “Someone stole our bottle of beer,” said Constable J. E. Pioknell, who gave corroborative evidence. On the second occasion, he said, the defendant came to them and said: “ I was told earlier in the evening who you are and what yon and your friends are np here for. You have only got me on one charge.” Sergeant G. Callaghan said that on a later occasion he asked Wilson if he had taken any steps to stop the drinking at the club. He said ; “ No. They drink in Auckland, they drink at every dance hall, and they even drink at the police ball.” Wilson had added that ft was far better for patrons to drink inside the cabaret and have cordials with their liquor than to go outside end drink “ hard stuff.” “ PARTY SPIRIT.” Mr A. J. Mazengarh, who appeared for Wilson, said the charges of allowing liquor to be consumed in a dance •ball could not be denied, but he submitted that there was no evidence that the club was a restaurant. It was not ■used as a meal house, and was not licensed as a restaurant. On December 22. counsel said Christmas parties were being held and there wa* a considerable amount of drinking going on. On the next occasion New Yfrar was almost on them, and there was a good deal of the party spirit in the air. Wilson did not give evidence.