THE LICENSING LAWS

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13091, 2 April 1903, Page 3

THE LICENSING LAWS

CHARGES AGAINST PUBLICANS. { At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., seven charges of breaches of the licensing laws were heard. Charles William Hammond (Mr Byrne), the licensee of the. Heatlicote Arms Hotel, pleaded not guilty to a charge of selling liquor to Alfred'Shearwood during prohibited hours. Sub-Inspector Dwyer, in opening the case, explained the circumstances under ■which the information had been laid. The young man who had been served with liquor had left Christchurch to. go to Sumner, and. after being there- for two hours, had called in on his return journey at the Heatlicote Arms and had a drink. The police considered that this case came within the scope of the decision delivered here last month by his Honor the. Chief Justice, in the case'Clark v. Sheehan. Alfred Shearwood said he was a resident of Sydenham, and on -Sunday, March 15, he rode out to Sumner on his bicycle, arriving there at throe o'clock. He went on to the beach, ?ar\ left for 'Christchurch again at 3.40 p.m., calling on his way at the Heatlicote Ar,ms'' Hotel. Mr? Hammond supplied him, and Mr Hammond, who was at the door, asked him if he was a bona fide travo'ler and if he had had anv other drink that day. Witness replied satisfactorily, and he was allowed to pass in. Before he was supplied with drink at the bar he was again questioned by Mrs Hammond, who inquired where he had been and where he lived. Witness answer**, ana when the police came- in ha told them-exactly what had occurred. The points of the defence were twofold. In the first place it was .submitted, that the man was a traveller arriving from a journey and entitled -to a drink, and, if that failed, Mr Byrne said he would go on the hypothesis, contained in. Section. 157, that the de-. fendant, having taken all reasonable precautions, arid having honestly believed that the ma.u was a traveller, had served him with liquor. . . ~. Sub-Inspector Dwyer drew attention to the"case Pinn v. Alexander (1893), 1 Q.B. 522. Mr Byrne submitted that this case had no bearing on the present case. The words "arriving from a journey" did not mean " arrived at the final destination." Mr Beetham reserved his decision. Ebenezer D. Humboldt Buchanan, the licensee of the Junction Hotel at Halswell, was charged, on six informations, with permitting drunkenness on his 'licensed premises, "and selling liquor during prohibited hours. The' informations were bracketed with the names of Neil Smith, John, Wright, John Kelly, George- Legg and Anna Eliza Kelly. Mr Byrne appeared for the- defendant. The Magistrate requested' that the- license should be handed into the custody of the Court. Mr Bvrne replied that the defendant did not at present hold the license-,' it having been transferred since the date of the information. Mr .Beetham : Oh, wall, we can't- expect him to produce something which he has not got. Mrs Anna- Elisa Kelly, .carry i/ig on a dairying business at Cashmere, said that on Sun.-lav, March 15, she passed the Halswell Hotel "at about six o'clock. She entered the premises and found several men there, including her husband. Kelly was sitting on a table with a glass cf beer in front of •him, and ho was drunk. 'Witness toldißuchanan, the- licensee, that i£ lie did nob put her husband out she would send for the police. Mick Curraii was serving belund the bar. After getting her husband out of tlie hotel she took him to his father's house, where he remained for an hour. Tlien they had tea and went home. Witness had some whisky and ginger-ale hersslt m the. house before leaving, which was. served by Miss Manning. When paying she tendered 2s, and Buchanan asked her if she was goinn- to treat him. Witness said that if he wanted a drink he could have one. He then had a, drink at witness's expense. Witness first saw Neil Smith outside the hotel, and he told her that her husband was within. , Cross-examined : Witness had asked Mr Buchanan not to servs her husband, but she bore -him no ill-will op. account of ins having done so. , . G-eoi-ire Le-"-n-, a labourer living at Spr-ay-don, about three miles' distant from the Junction Hotel, said he saw Kelly at theHotel on Sunday afternoon, March 15 He was neither drunk nor sober Witness was at the hotel again at 7.30, when ne had a driiik. There were five or six oilier ■mc-n there, whom ho named, who also had drinks. , ' . , William Kelly, living at Halswell, said that his son was intoxicated when 'Drouth.; to'his place by Mrs Kelly. ' _ X-eil Smith said he came from- Onristchurch on Sunday, March 15,.\and was •<?r."cd heforo dinner with one drink by ftie inrman He remembered the police comi'ne ot"4 p.m. He. knew others mentioned as k-nn" Won t-lia -premises at that time, bvtcouM' not. say whether they were drunk nr'fcad drink p had -bMii aK*ed at the hotel where he 'had «lep, the previous niaht, and h* had replied that heslept on the roadside. He could not remember if it was before or after, getting the drink. , , ~ r ~- -,-, John Kellr, tho husband of Mrs Kel ~ -<iid- that he arrived -at the Junction .Hotel at about 10.30 o'clock on tho Sunday moraine in question. He had a pint or I)eer, ,

Rnd remained in the vicinity of the hotel. About four o'clock in the allornoon ha had' another pint of beer, which was served 'by the barman. Those wcm the only drinks he had. 'Sub-Inspector Dwyer : Do you remember your wife coming In the' hotel at sis o'clock ? Witness: Yes. Sub-Inspector .Dwyer :' She. says that yon had a glass of beer' in front of you then. Is that true ? Witness:-Yes, I 'believe so. Sub-Inspector Dwyer: Then that was the third drink you had then? Witness : I suppose so. _ Sub-Inspector Dwyer: What condition were you in? Witness : Well, I was a bit dazed, I expect. Mr Beetham : Who supplied you with the last drink? Witness: Well. I can't, remember that. Constable Evan wild he visited the Junction Hotel at about four o'clock on Sun-day a;;tcrnoon. Legg, Dochcrty and Kelly were on the road in"front of the hotel, and the first two were drunk. The Sunday-school children were " larking" with them. Kelly was inside, and was not drunk, but under the influence of liquor. Witness told him to go home. Witness spoke.to the barman about the two men outside', and the barman replied that they had i only had one. drink. There were several other men there, who were described as bona fide travellers. Witness, in company with Constable Andrews, again visited the hotel, and found six men within. Hamilton and Murray were getting drinks for the others at the slide. Witness rapped at the slide, and asked the barman if he had served the men. The barman replied in the first place that he" did not know, but almost immediately he said, " Yes, they said they were travellers." Witness asked Mr Wright, who was present, if he was a traveller, and he replied that ho had just put the hor'sa m the trap to come and get a nip. Buch'anan himself was under the influence* of drink. Constable Andrews gave corroborative evidence. Wright had paid for drink? for himself and Hughes as the police arrived. John Wright, a dairyman, living at Cashmere, said that, in company with Hughes, they visited the Junction Hotel, about four miles away, and each had a, drink. Buchanan, -who knew where he lived, asked if he was a traveller, and witness replied that he believed he was. Witness did not tell the police that he harnessed up the horse with the express object of getting a- drink. He had gone for a- long drive, and entered the hotel to get a'drink. This closed the case for the prosecution. After hearing argument, Mr Beetham said that the defence could put aside' all the cases excepting as regarding Neil Smith and John Kelly. He would accept the evi-, deuce of Wright. No evidence in defence was offered. In giving judgment Mr Beethani said that the evidence disclosed a. most disgraceful state of affairs, and the public were to be congratulated upon the fact that the defendant no longer held a license. He would take particular -care, to s«». that he did not hold a license again so long as he lived. He would be fined the maximum penalty of £lO on each of the two informations named.