WAR REGULATIONS ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17329, 18 November 1916, Page 5

WAR REGULATIONS ACT.

ALLEGED ILLEGAL TREATING. AT OAFE DE PARIS. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., Arthur Rose, licensee of the Cafe de Paris, was charged- with permitting treating, and Dora Mullins, barmaid, and Hugh Charles Graham were charged with treating, contrary to the War Regulations. The cases wore taken together, Mr Cassidy appearing for all the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspector Mullany said that as .far as possible he would cut tho evidence down to the drinking or shouting, leaving out other events that happened on the same night. Roland George Collins, salesman, gave evidence that on tho evening of September 27 he was in company with John Finlay, now dead, arriving at the hotel about 8.30. When they got to the bar Finlay called for whisky and brandy, aud they’ were supplied, Finlay paying for them. Ho could not say who served them other than that it wa« one of the barmaids- Then Graham came over and asked them to drink with him, and drinks, whisky, brandy and sherry, were ordered a.nd paid for by Graham, but he could not say who served ‘them. Then Graham paid for another round, which was served by Dora Mullins. A quarrel occurred while they were consuming the drinks? and he and Finlay left the hotel together, but returned later, when Hrinks—whisky and stout—were placed in front of them by Mullins, without payment. Finlay had gone hack to tho hotel to tell the barmaids that he was feeling all right-, and they wore asked by the barmaid what they would have. They only stayed about ten minutes and then went home. He did not see Rose on either occasion, or Graham on the second occasion. To Mr Cassidy: Finlay was his friend, but lie had nothing against Graham. It was not his wish that the case should go to the Supreme Court. He had not told Mullins that if anything happened he would pull Graham into it. He was not in the Rotliorficld Hotel that night at all. He had paid for no drinks at all.. Ho had no money on him. He knew that it was an offence to accept treating. This closed tho case for the police. Mr Cassidy submitted that Collins, being guilty of an offence under Section 4, was an accomplice, and conviction could not follow unless his evidence was corroborated. He participated in the offence and could not be regarded merely as an informer. The Magistrate said that there was no rule of law that the evidence could not be accepted. There was a case to answer.

Mr Cassidy said that the evidence of the defence was 'that there was no shouting. Hugh Charles Graham, a working journalist, who said that ho had served in South Africa and risen from private to captain, gave evidence that he walked into the hotel to see a man, when Finlay, an old friend, and Collins, came in. He had not shouted for either of them. He had his own drink in front of him when they came in. He had not struck Finlay, as was proved by medical witnesses. There was a quarrel with Foster, and Finlav came between them, and ho pushed him aside. , „ ~ Cross-examined: He paid for Ins own two drinks in succession, and Finlay did tlie same. He did not notice Collins at all. . Dora. Mullins gave evidence that she only remembered serving Graham once and Finlay once, but she never remembered serving Collins. She had not shouted for Finlay and Collins. She might have said, “ What are you going to have?” as it was the usual question. If Collins had not paid for it then he probably still owed for it. The rules against shouting wero very strict in the hotel. During the evening the barman of the Rotherfield called at the bar. , , To the Magistrate: She only served Graham and Finlay with one drink each, simultaneously. Collins did not have a drink. Graham had whisky, Findlay had brandy. Walter Doring, barman :>t the Rotherfield Hotel, said that the night of the trouble at the Cafe do Paris was his night off. When he was going out of the Rotherfield ho raw Finlay and spoke to him, and also Collins, and later saw. them at the Cafe do Paris. Edmund Barnes, licensee of the Rotherfield Hotel, said that on the night of the row. when his barman was off duty, lie saw Finlay and Collins both in bis bar. J. T. Sutton licensee of the Dominion Hotel, said that on the night of September 27 ho and Rose met at Mr Drcwitfc’s to discuss licensing matters and parted about closing time. F. Drowitt, president of the Licensed Victuallers* Association, gave similar evidence. r llie Magistrate recalled Collins, who said that when they first left tho hotel thev went into the right-of-way until Finlay recovered. They then walked along Cashel Street to go home, hut Finlay insisted on returning to the Cafe de Paris. They wero nwav about half an hour all told. They were in the Rotherfield on the previous evening. Graham paid for the drinks with one coin. In giving his decision the Magistrate said that there was ne corroboration of Collins's evidence, although ho gave it clearly and concisely. In the ease of Graham, however, there could be no possibility of mistake that he had paid for drinks, but in the case of Ihe barmaid there was always a possibility of a mistake, and if more than one coin was on the bar she could not tell who had placed it there. In the case of the licensee there was no evidence that he had permitted treating. Graham would be fined and costs. The other eases would be dismissed.