MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 August 1935, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASE& 1

Licensing charges comprised th® majprity of the lengthy list dealt with at the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, to-day. Mr. H. Morgan, S.M., presided, and Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle represented the police. A first offender, for drunkenness, was convicted and discharged. In accordance with his previous announcement, the S.M. increased the penalty for statutory first offenders, found unlawfully on licensed premises after‘hours, from 15/-, with 10/- costs, to £l, with 10/- costs. Twenty such offenders were fined at the higher rate. One of them was also convicted, without penalty, for a breach of his prohibition order. John Darwell, licensee of the Union Hotel, was charged that, on July 12, he. unlawfully opened the premises for the sale of liquor, exposed liquor for sale, and sold liquor. Mr. J. W. Hannan, who appeared for defendant, pleaded guiltv to the “selling” charge, and the others were withdrawn.

Sergeant J. Isbister stated that he visited the hotel with Constable MacDonald at 10.45 p.m. They were admitted by the porter. , The bar was open and lit up, and the licensee was behind the bar. Six men were in front of the bar, and were in possession of liquor. They all admitted that they had no right to ba there, and the licensee also admitted it. The men were all sober, with the exception of one, who very quarrelsome and abusive. The licensee had no explanation to make.

‘ Mr. Hannan said fie could not add anything to what had been said. The S.M. pointed out that Darwell was fined £5 on January 29, 1934, and his license was then endorsed. He was fined £5 on May 13 last, for unlawfully opening the premises. He would, on the present charge, be fined £lO,. with 10/- costs. If he came be fore the Court again, his license would receive a second endorsement.

John Thomas Doyle, licensee of the Rapahoe Hotel, was charged that, on July 21, ha unlawfully opened the premises, exposed liquor for sale, and sold liquor. Mr. Hannan pleaded guilty to the change of “selling,” and the others were withdrawn.

Constable, Swan stated that, $t 1 p.m. on Sunday, Julv. 21, he found one man on the premises, who claimed a glass of beer on the counter. The licensee the act of pulling down the bar slide. Doyle stated that he “shouted” for the man, who had visited the hotel to see him about killing a calf. Thq man, however, said that the calf had been killed two days before. Mr. Hannan stated that the licensee had not. been convicted since 1931.

The S.M. imposed a fine of £2, with 12/- costs.

DOUBLE-BARRELLED CHARGES

The action of the police, in charging both the licensee -and the barman of the Dominion Hotel, with similar offences arising out of the same circumstances, was the subject of some comment by counsel for the defendants. Vincent Stewart Goulding, barman, was charged that, on July 14, he unlawfully opened the premises of the Dominion Hotel, exposed liquor foi sale, and sold liquor. Mr. Hannan I’or defendant, pleaded not guilty. • John Cotter, licensee of the Dornin ion Hotel, was similarly charged; Mr. Hannan pleaded guilty to the “selling” charge, and the others were withdrawn. The Senior-Sergeant stated that, on Sunday, July 14, at 8.25 p.m., he and Constable Brown visited the hotel. They heard loud voices in the parloui’j, and there found four men, two of whom were unlawfully on the premises. They were in possession of liquor, and admitted they went to the hotel for a drink. One of them stated that Goulding supplied the liquor, but the second man refused to say who supplied him. Goulding admitted supplying the liquor, but said that it was purchased by a lodger. The latter denied knowing the two men, and said that he did not buy their drinks. Goulding then said that a lodger had given him £l, to pay for his board, and that the price of the drinks was taken out of the £l. Goulding was employed at the hotel as the regular barman and had, witness understood; now been granted a certificate of fitness to take over the licensee. Constable Brown gave evidence regarding the visit to the hotel. Mr. Hannan stated that there was no dispute as to the facts, but he had pleaded not ' guilty on behalf of Goulding, on the technical point, that Goulding could not be charged under the same section as the licensee, as Goulding was the barman. The Senidr-Sergeant said that it was often done, when a man' was in charge of the hotel, as Goulding was at the time of the police visit. Mr. Hannan asked how could a person other than the licensee keep the premises open? If a servant happened to open the door, he was not opening the premises. Goulding was only acting as a servant, when he supplied liquor. The liquor belonged to the licensee. Mr. Hannan submitted that Section 190 of the Act) (under which Goulding was charged) covered the licensee only. He had never heard of the section being used against a person other than the licensee. The Senior-Sergeant said that Colliding was the licensee’s agent, and was in charge of the hotel at the time. Mr. Hannan stated that the licensee was not out of town, but was away from the hotel only temporarily. If Goulding had been charged under the usual section (205), he would iiave pleaded guilty. The S.M. said that Section 205 was specially provided to meet the case of servants of licensees, and that was the section under which a barman was usually charged with supplying liquor after hours. He thought that was the section under which Goulding should have been proceeded against. He had never seen a barman charg-

ed under Section 190. Where a special section was provided, cases should be brought under that section. On the facts, Goulding must be convicted under Section 205. Mr. Hannan said that it was not

an ordinary case of selling after hours, but was the result of carelessness. A boarder in the hotel had. prior to the visit of the police, taken drinks upstairs for himself and two other boarders. He came downstairs, to order further drinks, and to pay for his board. Goulding presumed that the two other men, who were not wearing hats, were the two boarders, who had just arrived that day from Hokitika. He therefore deducted the price of three drinks from the £l. So far as Cotter was concerned, he had been a licensee for over 20 years, and had not been pre-.

viously convicted. He gave instructions that no one was to be supplied with liquor, on the occasion of the present offence, and it was carelessness rather than a deliberate breach of the Act. In view of. Cotter’s good record, and the fact that he would be responsible for the payment of Goulding’s fine, Mr. Hannan suggested that Cotter be convicted without penalty. The S.M. said that it was unfortunate for Cotter, with his good record. Goulding seemed to have got him into trouble. Cotter would be ordered. to pay 10/- costs. In reply to the S.M., Mr. Hannan stated that arrangements were in progress for Goulding to take over the hotel. The Senior-Sergeant said that Goulding had no previous convictions against him in Greymouth. He had been the licensee of an hotel in Christchurch, and had convictions against him there, about two years ago. Goulding was fined. £2, with 10/costs, under Section 205, for unlawfully supplying liquor.

MAN FOUND IN PANTRY

Unlike Mother Hubbard, when Sergeant J. Isbister went to the pantry in the Hotel Richmond, on the riight of July 12, he found that the cupboard was not bare, but that it contained Frank Preston. The latter was charged, to-day with being unlawfully on the premises, after hours. The licensee, Andrew Kyle, was charged with aiding and abetting Preston. Mr. Hannan appeared for defendants, and pleaded not. guilty. The Senior-Sergeant stated that Sergeant Isbister and Constable MacDonald went to the hotel at 10.10 p.m They heard noises inside, as of persons moving, and it was about two minutes before the door was opened to admit them. The Sergeant suspected that men had been in the hotel, and noticed that the door of the pantry was closed and locked. He asked that it should be opened, but was told that the cook had the key, and had gone to the pictures, also that the other keys would not fit the pantry door. After some time, the sergeant got the key of the dining-room, and it opened the pantry door. Preston was found inside. The excuse he offered was that he knew there was food in the pantry, and he went in to get some. Both the licensee and Mrs. Kyle denied that they knew Preston was there. Another feature of the matter was that eight or nine men were seen tunning away along an adjoining street, by the constable, although he did not actually see them come from the hotel.

Evidence was given by Sergeant Isbister, who stated that, when Preston was found in the pantry, he said, “I came in here to get a feed. This is where they keep all the tucker, isn’t it?”

To Mr. Hannan: Preston was quite sober, and said that he had been working on the wharf that night. Cribtime on the wharf was between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Constable MacDonald also gave evidence.

Mr. Hannan said that Preston had been working on the wharf, and went to the hotel during • crib-time to get a cup of tea and something to eat. It was a recognised thing, and the police took no objection to the wharflabourers having their crib in the hotels, so long as they were not supplied with liquor. Preston was admitted by the barman, and the licensee did not know he was there. While the police were questioning the licensee, in the front of the hotel, Preston went to the pantry, and locked himself in. The licensee was unaware of his presence. Evidence on the lines of Mr. Hannan’s statement was given by Kyle, who said that, when the sergeant went to the kitchen, the porter was there, and two cups of tea and eatables were on the table. The men said to have been seen running away had not been in the hotel. He also denied that the alarm was given by a woman who was seen through a window, when the sergeant was approaching the hotel. He stated that he got as big a surprise as the sergeant, when Preston was discovered in the pantry. When Preston heard the police in the hotel, he got a fright, and locked himself in the pantry. Frank Preston stated that he was a wharf labourer, and had been working on the Ngakuta. He arranged at 4 p.m. to go to Kyle’s hotel that night, for crib. He was having a cup of tea in the kitchen, when the police entered the hotel. He thought that, he had better get out of the road, to save arguments. He went into the pantry, locked the door, and put. the key in his pocket. He did not see the licensee, and there were no other men there.

To the Senior-Sergeant: He took the key out o£ the lock because he knew that, if the sergeant shone his torch on the key-holo, and saw that a key was in the door, he would know someone was in the pantry. Preston added that he went to the hotel for crib, but did not wait to be questioned by the police, as his excuses had not been accepted by them on previous occasions, and he had been told to explain to the S.M.

The S.M. said that it was a very ingenious excuse, on the part of Preston, but he could not swallow it. There was some doubt, in the case of the licensee. Preston would be fined £l, with 10/- costs, and the charge against Kyle would be dismissed.

OTHER CASES For driving a car without a license, on July Richard Thornton was fined. 10/-. with 12 - costs. The SeniorSergeant stated that the car struck two cows, on the Coal Creek road, and they had to be destroyed. The car went off the road, and a young man one of the occupants, had to be admitted to hospital. Thomas Patrick Ryan was lined 10'-. with l't - costs, for cutting the corner at the intersection of Mackav ami Tainili Streets, on July 20, while driving a car. Hilda Rose Brown was charged witli being in possession of an unlicensed wireless set, on July 13.

Alexander Walton, assistant supervisor, Post and Telegraph Department; stated that the set was purchased on April 9. Defendant was warned on three occasions, about a license, but failed to procure one. On July 13, she was given a further three days’ grace, but again failed to get a license. A license had not been procured, and the set had now been returned to the dealer.

Defendant was fined 30/-, with 10, costs.

On the information of the Inspector of Mines (Mr. C. J. Strongman), Finn and party, owners of the Jubilee coal mine, Rapahoe, were charged with employing Robert Longstaff as mine manager, on July 23, ‘he not being the holder of a second-class or superior certificate, more than ten men being employed. Defendants, who did not appear, comprised Charles Pinn, Thomas Pinn, George Pinn, Henry Pinn and Samuel Pinn.

Inspector Strongman stated that Longstaff held an underviewer’s certificate, but that entitled him to take charge of ohly ten men. The offence was rather difficult to detect. It was rather common in the district, and he would like to put a stop to it. Defendants were each fined 5/-, with 2/- costs.. On the information of the Inspector of Nuisances (Mr. H. Lane), for whom Mr. Hannan appeared, Robert William Leach was charged with allowing a horse to wand,er on. Reid Street; Blaketown, on July 17. Mr. Lane stated that he had previously warned defendant, on three occasions. Defendant was fined 5/-, with. 10/costs, and 10/6 solicitor’s fee. „ William N. Brown was charged with keeping an unregistered dog. Mr. Lane stated that, to his knowledge, defendant had had the dog from March 1. It had not yet been regisS Defendant was fined 5/-, with 10/costs, and 10/6 solicitor’s fee. • N. R. Brown (Mr. Hannan) applied for cancellation or variation of arrears amounting to £64/5/- on maintenance orders in respect of his wife and three children, providing for the payment of £2 per week. The application was Opposed, on behalf of the wife and children, by Mr. A. M. Jamieson. Aftei hearing Brown’s evidence, the b.M. made orders: (1) Remitting the arrears, except £l2, in the case o the children, the balance ot an ears to be paid off at the rate of 2/6 per week, in addition to current maintenance; (2) remitting the arrears, except £2O, in the case of the wife, the balance of arrears to be paid off at the rate of 2/6 per week, in addition to current maintenance, until tne £l2 arrears in respect to the children are paid off, thereafter the payment to be 5/- per week off the arrears 3) costs io Wire £2/2/: solicitor's fee and £l/1/-solicitor’s fee for the taking of the wife’s evidence.