BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 18 May 1926, Page 7

BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

INTERESTING ELTHAAI CASE. John Watson had been a Rechabite since .12 years of age. His father and mother had been abstainers also, nor, he averred, had drink ever passed the lips of his grandmother. Nevertheless, Johu AVatson appeared before Air R. \V. Tate, S.AI., this morning at the Eltharn Court, charged with being illegally on licensesd premises. How he inadvertently became entangled in the provisions of the Licensing Act came to pass in this fashion. The old Rechabite, who is very deaf, went out for a. motor ride last Anzac Day with two boarding-house acquaintances. One was a young man named Handley, whom the hearing of the case revealed as a good sort; the other one Carroll, concerning whom the police sergeant made some aspersions. Ostensibly for a meal—but the evidence suggested the possibility of an excursion on the part of the two younger men prospecting for a quiet Sunday morning “spot”—the three motorists entered the Dominion Hotel, Kaponga. However, they asked' for nothing but a meal, and as it was not yet lunch time they left the premises at once. Constable O’Donoghue saw them go, and interviewed them. LateT Handley and Carroll, feeling that they had “pooled” Watson, interviewed the constable and provided the police with evidence against themselves. They confessed, the constable said) in his evidence, that they 'had hoped, though they had not asked, for a “spot” and cigarettes but Watson was a total abstainer whom they wished to get out of the difficulty. The appearance of the three in court followed, the case producing evidence as given below. The case against AVatson was heard first.

Constable O’Donoghue, stationed at Kaponga. said that on Sunday, April 25, he saw AVatson leave the promises of the Dominion Hotel 1 in; Kaponga, in company with two other men. Tnterveiwed by witness. Watson said he had gone into the hotel to inquire when lunch would be on. Witness asked if it took three to inquire. Witness said he was hard of hearing, and the otehrs did the talking. These men drove into Kaponga in a oar, and went into the hotel together. They did not wait for lunch, and left Kaponga at 11.40. AAratson was not present when Carroll said he had gone into the hotel for -a “spot.” The- porter of the hotel told witness that the men had asked him where the “boss” was, and, on. being told he- was out, asked uhat time lunch would b© on.

Defendant said he had no- questions to ask the constable, who had given a correct account of what transpired. In th© witness box witness, using a broad Lancashire accent, said that he was 73 years of age. He came to New Zealand on account of his health. He hacl been an abstainer all his life, and his parents before him. He had not been in more than two hotels in this country. AA 7 ’itness protested earnestly that he had come to the court to- clear his character. Referring to the incidents- leading up to the charge against him, he said the three of them drove into town, saw the hotel open, and went in and asked for a meal. He then gave a history of 'his family’s temperance habits, and offered to. pay for cabled confirmation of what he told the court. He lived at a private hotel with the two men who were his companions on the day of the incidents referred to, and he was not aware that Carroll was a reputed bookmaker, had been convicted of assault, and of being found on licensed premises. To the Alagistrate.: He was a cabinetmaker by trade. One of his companions was a commercial traveller.

Walter Croyton said that three men came to him. while he was working in the Dominion Hotel at Kaponga. on April 25. They asked if the “boss"'' was in, and then what time lunch would be on. No drink was asked for. He could not identify the men. The magistrate, to Watson: “I am afraid you will have to stand the racket of your company.” Defendant pleaded with the magistrate that his intentions had been honest, and that he wished to clear his character. He had never been, before a court before.

Mr Tate then admonished the defendant and dismissed the case .against mm.

Evidence against Carroll and Handley on .similar charges was given by Constable O’Donoghue on the same lines as against Watson. Carroll told witness that they had gone into the hotel for smokes and a drink. They said they were sorry for Watson, who was a man. that never drank, and they expressed the hope that the matter would be dropped. They then drove ci*it of town.

In reply to the defendant Hard Hey, Constable o’Donoghue said lie knew no request for liquor had been, made. Oscar Handley gave evidence similar 1 to that already given,, but said he did nofc remember anybody saying that they had hoped* to get a drink. The con.stab'e cave them a cigarette each. Richard Carroll - did not offer evidence.

The magistrate said that the two defendants should know perfectly well that they had no right on licensed premises, on Sunday. ' He thought that the admission of the defendants to the constable, was what the case amounted to, nameilv, they went into the hotel on the off-chance of getting a> drink. It was, to the defendants’ credit that they had tried to assist Watson, whoso action was, perfectly innocent. Tho magistrate fined Carroll 40s. with 1 7s costs, and Handley 20s, with 7s costs.