THE COURTS.

Lake County Press, Issue 2737, 6 June 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS.

Magistrate's Court, Arrowtown. Friday, May 81. (Before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M.) Two local residents were charged on the information of the police with being found on licensed premises at 6.1S p.m. on April 23rd. They did nol appear, and were each fined 20/- and costs 7/-. Arising out of the previous cases, Mr A. Jopp, licensee of the Royal Oak Hotel, was charged with exposing liquor for sale at 6 12 p.m. on the same date. Mr Turton, who appeared for defendant, said that although the facfcß were admitted, he would enter a plea of not guilty, so that evidence might be given. Constable H. McMahon gave evidence to the effect that at 6.12 p.m. on the day in question he visited the Royal Oak Hotel. He found the slide connecting the bar with billiard room up. The door leading to bar was also open. Two men were standing at the slide, and the barman was in the bar also at the slide facing the two men. First questioned the latter as to whether they had any reasonable excuse. They replied that they did not think it was after 6. On the slide were two decamers, two empty glasses, and a mineral water bottle. He asked the barman " What was the meaning of this," but received no reply. Witness then walked round into the bar and asked the barman the time by hia clock. He replied 6 12. By Mr Turton: Mr Jopp was in Queenstown at the time. He saw no drinks served. One of the men waa reading a letter. The barman did not say there was a child in the bar at the time, and gave no explanation. Had been stationed in Arrowtown ten months, and the hotel had been well conducted during that time. For the defence, A. Jopp, defendant, said that on the day in question he was driving the Queenstown coach. His family had conduoted the hotel far 32 years, and this was the first case brought during that time. He had instructed barman to always close up at 6. He understood that three others had been served at the biliiard-room slide just before 6, and the reason that the slide had not been closed was that Lis (witness') child had come into the bar at the time and was gathering up corks, and the barman had been delayed. T. Cosgrove, barman, said he did not serve any drinks after 6 on the day in question. Had served customers at the slide just before 6. Just on 6 Mr Jopp's little boy came in bthind the bar and got in amongst the corks. This had delayed witness from clearing away decanters and glassea. When the constable came in one of the men at the slide was reading a letter. His instructions were to always close at 6 By Constable McMahon : Knew the men were in billiard room before he (the constable) entered. Did not explain because did not have time to do so. Mr Turton submitted that it was not a wilful case of exposure. He quoted authorities to show that there was no exposure if there was no intending purchasers There was nothing to show that the men were there for the purpose of drinking. It was a pure accident, and if the child had not been in the bar the place would have been closed up. He thought that now that the police had vindicated the case, which would serve as a warning, it should be dismissed. The Magistrate thought there had been a technical exposure, but it was not a serious case. There did not seem to be any conflict of evidence and facts had been admitted on both sides. It appeared that the hotel had been well conducted in the past. He would, however, take time to consider the case, and would give his decision later.