MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 15 December 1920, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

YESTERDAY'S SITTING.

(Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) SELLING LIQUOR AFTER HOURS. .In connection with the charges •npinst the licensee of the Manutalu Hotel John James Chandler was pro- ' ceeded against on two informations of Having allegedly sold liquor after flours Deiendant, who was represented by Mr ODea, pleaded gufuy *he Magistrate said he would reserve fixing the penalty in this case until he had given his decision in tiie previous case. CIVIL CASES. -» Judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs in the following undefended cases: M. J. Horroc-iis v T H Mac Donald, £8 8s; V. Penman v. A. Ward, £11 3s; H. E. Harris v J D Scott. £10 p s 2d; W. Thorpe v liavy Kangiroa £5 iqs 6d; ji\ H. Harrop v. Elizabeth Beaumont, £4 18s 6a. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. _W- Gilbert v. A. T. Crawford, claim £« 2s od.—Defendant was ordered topay the amount forthwith; in default eight days' imprisonment, order to be suspended so long as defendant pays 10s every fortnight in reduction of the. debt, CASE DISMISSED. John Niehol Anderson, licensee of the Empire Hotel, for whom Mr EMarshall appeared, was charged with, having opened his premises for sale and with having sold liquor at a time when such premises were required to be closed. The prosecution arose out' of a previous case, when a local resident was proceeded against for having been on the premises after hours. The Magistrate: The facts are tnac a boarder paid for the liquor? Sergt. Henry: That is so. The Magistrate: Under these circumstances I don't think there can be a conviction.' A" boarder has the right to treat a guest. The Magistrate suggested that th& information, be withdrawn, -but' Sefgt. Henry said he had been instructed to proceed with the case. After hearing legal argument the Magistrate, dismissed the informations. RESERVED DECISION. The Magistrate gave his decision in the case of Police v. William Martin Vivian as follows:' The defendant, who is the licensee of the Waimate Hotel, is charged on three informations with, selling, exposing for sale, and keeping open for sale, at a time when the premises are directed to be closed. The evidence shows that on the date of the alleged offences the police constable ■went into the hotel at 8.20 p.m., and found three men in one of the roorojl, none of whom w«re lodgers, who uaa drinks,, and found another man coining out of the bar, followed by the barman, and; this man also had a-drink. The barman admitted having supplied drinks to all the men. It was admitted by the police that, at the time the licensee was "confined, to his room, and had been so. for some time, and it \vad sworn to by tie defendant and the : barman that the barman was gnen the keys of the bar every morning at 9. o'clock for t the purpose of opening the bar,, and lie returned them to the licensee at 6 o'clock in the evening. After the barman had had his tea he came to the licensee for the Icey and cleaned out the bar. On the day in question the barman had got the keys after tea for the purpose of cleaning out the. bar as usual, and had not returned them when the men mentioned above came in v and he yielded to their requests to be supplied with, liquor. The evidence before me is.that he had strict instructions to serve no* person, not even boarders, with liquor after hours- If a boarder wanted a drink h& had" to- apply to Mrs Vivian, the licensee's" wife, for it., These facts bring the case within 'the decisions of the. Court in Kenning v Poster (1919). G.L.R., 69. In that case, as in the present, the barman had no authority to sell at the time when the offence was committed, and the licensee: was held not to be .fia'o'e. In the ease'of Tocker v. Mercer :li)i7), , G.L.R. the barman: wno math* the sale had1, at the time he made the sale, a general authority tO sell, though he had strict instructions not to: sell illegally,, antf the licensee was rightfully corvicted. The '---information: would be dismissed". . Mr Ryan appeared for the defendant. DEFENDED ACTION. J. L,Ooleman (Mr Patterson) proceeded; against J. Champibh (Mr F. C. Spratt) for the recovery of £27 12s 3d. The dispute arose in connection, with the price of mWs. supplied by plaintiff t© -defendant during the month of .August, when plaintiff raised the pWce from Is 3d to Is 6d. Defendant contended that he would have had no objection to paying theiDcreased price had he been given reasonable notice so that he could havepa Esed the increase on. Plaintiff gave evidence that thestate of the market ~and the eosjt^trf delivery ha 3 .compelled him to charge. the increased price. After hearing counsel, the Magistrate-. said he thought something^ should he. allowed off the claim 'He-, gave jatfgment for plaintiff for £21' -