IS RIGHT-O-WAY A HOTEL?

Grey River Argus, 21 June 1927, Page 7

IS RIGHT-O-WAY A HOTEL?

WEAK POLICE CASE. The question of whether a person Walking in a street or right-o-way may be held to have infringed the “afterhours” law was before Magistrate J. G. L. Hewitt, yesterday, at the local Court A woman was charged with being on licensed premises after hour without having been seen within licensed premis es, the basis of the prosecution being that she had some beer in a kit bag which, policemen took from her and examined u Sergeant Smythe stated that with Constable Nivens he was on duty on May 21st., when he saw defendant come along Customs Street, into Mawhera Quay. He recognised her. Defendant had then turned down a side street leading into Mackav Street. He saw her again in Customs‘Street. They stood aside in a dark recess, and she had passed by them. Later they saw he come out of a right-of-way with a kit bag. Witness questioned her as to what she had got in the bag, and defendant said “That’s my business,” and refused to let him see the contents. Witness had taken the

bag from defendant, and found in it a bottle of beer and two “square riggers.” (produced in Court.) Witness told her that she would have to come along to the Royal Hotel with him and she said she wouldn’t go. Witness had said “You’ve got to.” When interviewed by witness the licensee of the Royal Hotel had said that he had served sev cral boarders that evening, but he couid not account for defendant having the liquor. The wife of the licensee could not account for the situation either. The icensee admitted that he stocked beer f the sqme brand. The right-of-way ed to a billiards saloon at the rear and o the hotel itself. The Magistrate said that the evidence nly led to suspicion as to how defendant had obtained the liquor. She may have had it placed in the biliards saloon or have left it with one of he servants. The evidence did not show hat she was on the license premises. Senior Sergeant McCarthy said that to all intents and purposes it was used

as licensed premises. The Magistrate said that even it the right-of-way was part of the licensed premises, it had not been proved that the liquor had been sold to defendant. There was no evidence to show that the premises were kept open or that liquor was for sale and he would not convict defendant. The Senior Sergeant remarked that it the right-of-way was not a part of the licensed premises the matter would have to be dealt with by the Licensing Com--111 The Magistrate said that he must give defendant the benefit of the doubt. If it had been proved that she was on licensed premises, the onus would be on her but. such was not the case. The charge was dismissed. Mr J. Hannan appeared for the defendant.