A LICENSEE'S APPEAL.

Mataura Ensign, 25 February 1909, Page 2

A LICENSEE'S APPEAL.

■• WITNESS INTKNsr. SI'ITK. ' riilt UNITED I'RKSS ASROCIA'IION. Al'C'KI-AM), I'M.. ->\. A ionvii'tion recorded last month liv Mr It. W. Dver, S.M.. auainst Hiirrin Dingle, licensee of tin- Kailway Hotel, Urury, mi n (if Sunday tv:niiiiji. formed tlw. suhiool <,l an appeal under tin. Justices cil the Pence Act, Kills, hofore Mr Justice Kdv.ard.. in lh,. Supreme Court to-dav. Tin- Ci'iiuii -,.!,- citur (Hon. J. A. To!-, K.C.i ,|et.ni...| tlie ciicunislanccs which I,iid led up t-. the prosecution mid rcultcd 1.1 thconviction .nid i udoiseinent of ilie license in the lower court. He -aid lluit ii fnrnier named llenrv Tooman had visited the iioti ion the cicuii o! Sunday, Novonio'i' '!:>. ,11 scircj of Inlirotlicr, who was li"iirdine (lure tin arriviil lie enter.' 1 ;. private ro-.m in which were h.'s liiothcr ami anoilicr hoarder. Dunks were callel for, hut the landlady demurred ai scrvin;; Henry Tw»n-ni, ivniarlvin.', tli.it the other two could have refill,ne-il , ■.- they were hoarder,. Alter p..,Million, however, she hrnttcjn in driuhs for all three, which were paid lor, ind several rounds were consuincd duriii" the evenine. Henry Tooman jiavn evidence hore out those fact*, ami he I'lirile-r stated that his action in inforniiim ,i:e police of what had occurred <:.-.<■.

prompted by liij-tli words which li:id n: sued between himself and Mrs Dingle. Tli.. appellant characterised tli.. pec vimis witness' evidence eonoorniii;; the Mile of drink on the Smid.-iv in ipics.: .n •is :i 1 issue of falsehoods, and stated ili.-.t Spite hud caused Inni to net 1,-; informant to the police. Alex. Patterson, „ droter. de|«.,<i that ho was in the hotel mi the <\ on. 11IK ill r|itestiou but did not Witness illsale of any drink.

His Honor remarked that t'te e-. ■■ donee of the witness Tooman was ■!,•,•- acterised bv intense spite a"ainst V:--Diiml-. nnd there was nut tin, .slightest doubt tint t!.i', had rpiven ri«o to the prosecution, fie was quite sure lint any inn- who had hoard the evideiiuould Je-o-e -to trj, „(> further. The ea.sii would ban. r, ouired to be a vorv sjro:i<r one indeed to allow it to affect the value of the property concerned, and he Imd no hesitation in allowing, the appeal.