BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 10 August 1921, Page 5

BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT

; _ w HOTEL KEEPER AND SERVANT FINED. Freeman Wilcocks, David Price, and Joseph Coleman were charged at tho Magistrate's Court-, Hawera, yesterday with having been on licensed premises (the Central Hotel) during unlawful Jiours. Mr. ODea appeared for defendants, who pleaded guilty. Wilcocks was fined £2 and the others were fined £1 each. Costs were added in each case. Henry Edward Card was charged with having kept his hotel open during such 'time as it was required by law to be closed. There were also three charges of having sold liquor during unlicensed hours. Mr. Beechey appeared for defendants and the whole of the charges were taken together. Sergeant Henry stated that on the 23rd of last month, with Constable Mullan, he visited the Central Hotel at about 9.30 p.m. They entered by the door from Union Street. On going in the door he saw Patel with a tray in his hand. The front bar was lighted and -the door between the vestibule and the bar was closed. On going into the commercial roomie found four men. Sitting near the fire was Coleman, opposite was Wilcocks, and on the far side of the room Price. Coleman. admitted that he was not a boarder. Each of the men had their hats and overcoats on. Coleman said he had come into the hotel about ten ' minutes previously to rest his ankle. He also said he shouted a_. whisky and soda for Wilcocks, a.shandy for Price, and he was having a shandy himself. Price and Coleman had the liquor in their hands and Wilcocks' whisky and soda was on the mantelpiece. Mrs. Tregonning, who was in charge dur'n t Card's absence, then came into the room. Price said he had no excuse for being in the hotel. Mrs. Tregonning informed him that Card was absent from the hotel' and that she was in charge. She said that she saw Price come in, but did not see the other two, and that she was not aware that they were being supplied with liquor. Constable Mullen went out and brought in Patel, who said he saw a ring registered from the com-! mercial room, and on going in saw three men. He pointed to Price, who, *he said, ordered three drinks. The drinks were two long shandies and a long beer. He supplied a second rounck of drinks to Coleman. This time the drinks were two medium shandies and a whisky and soda, for which Is 9d i was paid. These were the drinks that ' were being consumed as the police entered. Patel said that Card was . away and Mrs. Tregonning- did not,. j know .that he was supplying; the i liquor. Mrs. Tregonning said the bar ■ door was left unlocked to enable the ! porter to serve boarders without .the necessity for calling her. Witness had previously seen Patel serving liquor from the bar. N I By Mr. Beechey: There was no attempt at concealment. Card ran a good hotel and had complained on one' or* two occasions about people Coming in after hours after liquor. The offence on this occasion could not have j been within his knowledge. , There j was no entrance but by the front door | after hours. He had seen Coleman | and Wilcocks near the Dominion Hotel I about three-quarters of an hour previously.. _ Constable Mullen corroborated the Sergeant's evidence. , ' Heiry Edward Card, licensee of .the Central Hotel, stated that on the date of the alleged 'offence he was in Wellington and returned on Thursday, the 28th. In his absence Mrs. Tregonning was in charge and Patel was employed. as\a porter. It was paj&jof his duty to supply liquor to boarders after closing hours. He had had some trouble with people coming after hours for liquor. He had complained to the sergeant about people .coming { n a f t^r" 11 o'clock, gaining entrance through the night porter by ringing the bell. jHe had instructed the porter not to serve, anyone but .boarders and to ; exercise every precaution -against 'serving any but boarders. The hotel' was a commercial house and with a little bluff and assurance anyone could get in after hours. ißy Sergeant Henry: The door of the bar would be Closed, . but not locked,, after the porter h-id served the first drinks to boarders after hours. The porter sometimes spoke to ' witness if anyone who did not seem entitled to drinks asked for them.. Drinks were served boarders by Patel. without witness, being asked. "; jTo his Worship: Patel had authority from witness to sell liquor in an authorised way—the way in which witness had authority to sell. Clara Tregonning, manageress of the Central Hotel, said it was quite a. usual thing for boarders when coming in at about 9.30 or 10 to have a drink. She did not know that liquor had geen served to Coleman, Price, and Wilcocks. Patel was a most obedient and trustworthy servant, and she had never before received any complaints about him serving liquor to non-boarders. She saw Price going into the room, and from that time till the police came she did not think that ten minutes elapsed. i Samuel Lockhart, a builder, living at the Central Hotel, said he and his brother were with Mrs. Tregonning when the police visited the hotel. He , saw one of the three men who were served with drinks as he entered. He had heard Patel question people as to whether they _were boarders before serving them. " j I Ranji Patel admitted supplying the liquor: His orders were to supply I boarders, and the three men who raim>' in he thought to be boarders. He did not ask them if they were. i Mr. Beechey said they now pleaded guilty to the charges against. Patel. i ! Mr. Beechey said that if the defence should be of no avail he would submit that the licensee should be dealt with leniently. It-was not like an offence committed for gain. His Worship: He was away. Mr. Beechey said that while the licensee was responsible for ythe acts' of his servant it was impossible for ] him to maintain supervision all the j i time. 1 The magistrate said he -would +n"!-" the charges against Patel first. There , were three senarate charges under sec_ tion 205 of the Act. A plea of gniltv had been entered 'and the excuse was that Patel thought the men were hoarders. Tt was ouite apparent, nnd 'it was freely and honestly admitted ' that no attempt had geen made to find out whether the men were entitled to be treated as hoarders. Ho ; merely assumed t]ys and .had failed +o make the slightest inquiry. This r>otwitTiKtaridino: the fact that Mrs. TVo. ' conning, who was in charge during Mr. Card's absence., was within a c,+e-i «nd could have been consulted. Patel .had signally failed to recognise his. ' own liahilitv or what he was exposing his employer to. and that beinc*- so would have to pay some pennltv. TT« would be convicted and fined 4*5 au<"l costs. Against the licence himself theve were four separate chargo". "11 arising out of the same ?et of n*r~ enmstnnces. The evidence showed t^at the liop-nqpe was away, but be bvl ] delegated hi« authority to Mrs. Tw- ' * rronnin"-. and Patel was. ae^oi-clinc to her evidence, solely under "her. control

during the absence of the licensee. Airs. Tregonning said fjlie knew nothing of the supply of liquor to these anen, yet they were supplied with liquor on two separate occasions while she was in the office and .could have setu everything that was going on ha<£ she chosen to look. The liquor was supplied by men who had no right to be on the premises at the time, and who had freely admitted their guilt and had been fined that morning accordingly. In his opinion it was perfectly plain that defendant was liable. The evidence showed that defendant had failed to appreciate the liability the Act imposed either on himself or his employee. There was no doubt that the licensee was. liable for the acts of his employees. If licensees appointed servants who failed to appreciate their duty and liability as servants he could hardly complain if he was landed in trouble. It was -unfortunate that the licensee was away, but the Licensing Act threw upon him a responsibility of which he could not rid himself. The Act threw upon him the responsibility of carrying out the law and he had not done that. He understood that the licensee had been before the court before. Serjeant Henry: On June 28 last he 1 was fined £10 for supplying youths with liquor. His Worship: The maximum penalty. Sergeant Henry: Four youths went into the bar, and though Mr. Card was in the bar his back was to them and he did not see them. The barman \yas also fined £10.

His Worship said he would give Card one more opportunity. Were it not for the fact that he was absent at the time he^ (the magistrate) did not think he would have given him another opportunity. Apparently his default was that he allowed servants who did not understand the law to get him into trouble. One would have thought that the last penalty, being the maximum, would have had a better effect. He would not endorse the license, but on the first charge defendant would be fined £10, on the second £3, and on each of the others he would be convicted and discharged.