LICENSING ACT

Gisborne Times, Volume LV, Issue 6184, 15 September 1921, Page 6

LICENSING ACT

LICENSEE FINED FOE BREACH. MEN ON PREMISES AFTER HOURS PUNISHED. A number of cases arising out of alleged breaches of the Licensing Act were heard by Mr J. ,S. Barton, S.M., at the. Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. . Charles Joseph McCarthy, licensee of the British Empire Hotel, appeared in answer to three charges, viz.: Exposing liquor for sale at a time when the premises were required to be closed; keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor after hours, and allowing liquor to be consumed after hours. Charges of having been found on licensed premises after hours without lawful reason were preferred against James Barclay and John Wallace. Mr J. S. Wauchop appeared for all the defendants, each of whom pleaded not guilty. Inspector Hutton prosecuted, and on his application' all the charges were heard together. The Inspector, in giving evidence, stated that at about 9.10 p.m. on September 8, be was passing the British' Empire Hotel and saw lights in the bar. He went into the hotel and tried the door of the bar and found it

locked. Ho listened and heard voices coming from the office, and he then went and knocked at the office door, but received no answer and the talking he had heard ceased. After a pause he knocked again but 1 ecei\ ed no response. Again he knocked, louder and longer, and the door was opened by the licensee. Witness said, "I see your bar is lit up, and I have come to see why/'’ He replied All right, Mr Hutton.” • Witness walked in and saw a door in the far corner half open and on the counter were glasses and a jug of water. A screen was standing in the room, and the defendants, Wallace and Barclay, were behind it. In reply to a question, the licensee Had. said the two men were friends, and witness asked if they were boarders. McCarthy went and got the book and started fumbling with it when the men admitted they were not boarders. Witness turned’to McCarthy and said, "You have been supplying liquor McCarthy replied. "Yes. I know I have done wrong.” Witness asked what drinks ho had supplied and he replied, "A gin, and a shandy gaff. Barclay then asked witness if he would not say anything about the matter on this occasion, adding that the fault was his (Barclay’s). Witness replied, "No Such an action on my part would be an, offence." The three defendants then admitted having consumed liquor. To the Magistrate, the witness said the bar was still lighted when he went into the office. The liquor was fully exposed and the main door was wide by Mr Wauchop, the witness said that the room he went into was the private office, from which access could be gained to the bai. He did not know that this was the only private room in the house. He had not seen inside the bar but it was lit up. • Counsel: You don't suggest that Barclay and Wallace were hiding from you? —Ccrtaiu.lv they were. They were behind the screen and could not be seen from the door. Continuing:, tlie witness said that ne had not seen the word "private on the door. The room was, however, a private bar. . • Mr Wauchop: How do you know it is a private bar?—Drinks are 6old from Only to the licensee's friends?—No, to anyone. , , Are you sure? —Yes, I have had drinks there myself. With the licensee? —No. If I wanted a quiet drink now I would go therein answer to further questions, tho witness said he had not been told that the bar was lit up to be cleaned, hut, on tue contrary, the licensee had said "I know 1 have done wrong. ’ McCarthy had not said he had "shouted” for his friends. . For the defence, Mr Wauchop said it was admitted that Barclay and Wallace had been on the premises with McCarthy. The three had been talking outsido the hotel, and the licensee had invited the other two into the hotel and supplied drinks. They went into the only private room in the house and the licensee had himself "shouted.” The story with regard to the conversation was, however, contradicted. Never at any time was any attempt made to mislead the Inspector. The licensee, he contended, was entitled to expose the liquor if he was committing a lawful act to do -so. Mr Wauchop quoted a number of cases in support of his argument. Charles Joseph McCarthy, in evidence, stated that at about 8.15 pun. on Thursday last he had been walking in front of the hotel when the two other defendants walked over from the taxi stand. After talking for some time, witness invited his friends into his private office for a drink. The room was used only for his friends and was kept locked during tho day. ho one had paid for the drinks. They had just consumed the drinks when he heard a knock on the enquiry slide. He did not answer this, but when tlie knock was repeated on the door he opened it and invited the Inspector in. The bar was lighted because the night porter was cleaning out. During the conversation Barclay had said they had been invited into the hotel and said he would take all the blame. Witness had referred to the lodgers’ book, but had never gone near it. He had not endeavoured to deceive the Inspector in any way. Witness had admitted that they had been, supplied with drinks. Cross-examined by the Inspector the witness said the only knocks he heard were on the slide and one on the door. The other two defendants had not come to the hotel on that night as customers. He had often, refused to supply tnem with drink after horn's. He had heard Barclay say, "We are all licensees. I hope our licenses won’t be lost.” To tne Magistrate the witness said that lie did not see any harm in being found behind locked doors giving drinks to men to whom he had refused to supply liquor. Continuing, witness' said he was surprised that the charge had ever been brought up.

Tho Inspector: Were not my parting words that you would lie summoned? — No.

Are you sure?—You said there would only be one charge. To Mr Wauchop the witness said it was never the custom to leave the door of the ottice open. The Magistrate said that the conflicting evidence of the Inspector and tue witness could not be accounted for by lapse of memory. “Can yon,” he aslcea the witness, “explain, why a responsible police officer should go into the witness-box and commit perjury for the purpose of obtaining an unjust conviction

Witness: His evidence is not according to what occurred. James Barclay, taxi-driver, gave similar evidence as-to their being invited into the hotel by McCarthy. W,ien the Inspector came in he had said do .witness. “I know you are not a boarder/ 1 and witness replied that he was not. The Inspector said. “You know you have no fight' here ?” and witness replied. “I suppose not. Can't you overlook it this time?" Witness had not said he had asked for the drinks. He had said he would take the blame because he did not know whether 'trie licensee was allowed to give them liauor, and he did not want him to get into trouble. Witness was not a very regular customer of the hotel. Tie had - never before, had a drink after hours. ;

To, the Thsnectbv the witness-said h'e had not gone over to ; cue" hotel to get

a drill*. He heard the Inspector say he could put them up for six different charges but would only put them, up on one. He had heard nothing said about endorsing the licenses, The Magistrate: Is McCarthy telling the truth when he says yon have often asked him for a drink after hours?— He must be' referring to taxi-drivers collectively. No. He mentions your name. Have you ever asked him for a drink before -Yes. The Inspector: Have you ever (been in Court before on account of drinking ?—No, I have never been before the Court in my life. The Magistrate: Well you are likely to if you go asking hotelkeepers for drinks after hours, John Wallace, another taxi-driver, stated that he had heard the Inspector ask for the hook, but when it was admitted that they were not boarders lie did not bother about it. The Magistrate: Did McCarthy touch the book?—No. How near was ho to the book? Mr Wauchop: If Your Worship saw the room you would realise that it is so small that he must be near the book. The Magistrate: I know the room well. I have been it, ami after hours too (smiling.) , Continuing, the witness said no onr had paid for the drink 6. They had been invited in by McCarthy. To the Magistrate the witness said he would deny that McCarthy had said to the Inspector, "I admit I have done wrong. I had no. right to supply the drinks.” Did McCarthy tell the truth when he said you had often asked for drinks after hours?—Not often, but only once or twice. ' This closed the case for the defence. In giving his decision, the Magistrate said that he defendant Barclay was charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises. The defence consisted of an endeavour to satisfy the Court that he was there for a lawful purpose. There was a conflice of evidence as to the reason, of liis being there. He would accept the evidence of the Inspector and wen Id not believe that of the defendant, whose evidence was in direct conflict with his statement to the police. Defendant would be convicted and fined £1 and costs 7s.

Wallace, who was similarly charged, said the Magistrate, had made the same defence, and again he was confronted with conflicting evidence. He preferred to believe tbe Inspector and disbelieve the defendant, whose explanation ‘was further discredited by his admission of having previously approached the licensee for liquor after hours. This defendant would also be fined £1 and costs 7s.

The first charge against McCarthy, said His Worship, was that of allowing liquor to be consumed after horn's. In this instance there was still a conflict of evidence and he had to choose between the credibility of the Inspector and the defendant. Having heard the evidence of both sides he was quite prepared to accept Inspector Hutton’s version. He found as a fact that Wallace and Barclay were unlawfully supplied with liquor after hours and the defendant would be convicted. It was some time since a case of this nature had been before the Court, and the hotels in Gisborne were well-conducted, and he intended to see that they were kept so conducted. An offence of this description differed from one committed on the spur of the moment. On. this occasion he would not call for the production of the license, but would treat the case as a warning. if a licensee wanted to entertain friends at night he was running a risk if he did so behind closed doors and with a lighted bar. The defendant would be convicted and fined £5 and costs 7s. Inspector Hutton said that he would not " press on the other two charges and these were withdrawn by leave of the Court.

In the charge against Sydney Dennett of having been in the Albion Hotel after hours, Mr Burnard said that the presence of the defendant in the hotel was admitted. The defendant was still absent from Gisborne and he did not propose to go any further with the matter. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £2 and costs £1 7s.