ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 13 October 1922, Page 8

ON LICENSED PREMISES.

A CHARGE SUSTAINED

In his decision in the ease police v. Percy Eastbury, a charge of being unlawfully on licensed premises, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., in his judgment, found: (1) That when Eastbury was found on the licensed premises by Constable Lemm on the occasion of the constable's first visit, at about 6.5 p.m., his presence there was lawful. The reason tendered in court to justify that presence is the same as that tendered to the police constable at the time; he states clearly whom he went to see, on what business he went, why the matter was urgent, and he produced visible evidence to the constable in support of his statement. If the police rely on Eastbury's presence in the hotel at 6.5 p.m. in support of this charge, 1 say that I find the defendant's story consistent, coherent, and credible, and I believe it. It satisfies me that his presence in the hotel at that time was not in breach of the provisions of the Licensing Act. (2) That wnen Constable Lemm doubled back to the hotel ten minutes later and found Eastbury still there, ! Eastbury's presence then was not lawful. Eastbury, in evidence, accounted for the intervening ten minutes hy ' describing an alleged business deal with Corcoran. Corcoran gave evidence of the same happening. When I examine these versions to endeavour to extract a clear explanation of Eastrbury's continued presence in the hotel I find the statements inconsistent and incoherent, and I do not believe them. What is undeniable about Eastbury's presence at 6.15 is that he was waiting for a drink, which was actually brought to him whilst the constable was there. I gravely suspect that the story of the ' business deal, was framed up to supply an excuse for Corcoran and being together waiting for drinks, and was intended to supply a setting for the claim that Eastbury was Corcoran's guest. t3) I have already found in another judgment read this morning, for reasons there set out, that Corcoran was not at this time a lodger at the hotel. Eastbury, therefore, gets no assistance from his association with Corcoran at the time. The defendant is convicted and fined £1, with court costs 7s.