LICENSING ACT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 141, 19 May 1925, Page 9

LICENSING ACT

CHARGE AGAINST FOUR MEN,

GUESTS OF MANAGEMENT. \ A case under the Licensing Act was heard at the • Magistrate’s Court yesterday when four young men appealed before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., on a charge of having been found on licensed premises, namely, the Commercial Hotel, at a time when such premises were required to bo closed. All four accused, who were represented by Mr Cohen, of Wanganui, pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Power gave evidence that, at about 7.20 p.m. on April 20, ho visited the hotel in question with Constable Ciole. Hearing voices and the clinking of glasses in a room adjoining the office, both went in. All four accused had a glass containing liquor in front of them, while there was a tray with dregs on it nearby. Witness asked the men if they were lodgers, receiving no reply to his question. The manager, who was also in the room, was questioned and he, too, failed to answer. One defendant then said that they had been to the hotel for dinner and that afterwards the manager had “shouted” for them. This was later corroborated by the other accused. Mr Cohen asked witness whether it was not natural that the accused should have been reticent in giving an explanation, seeing that these were never accepted by the police and prosecutions inevitably followed.

Witness: That is not correct. Honest, satisfactory explanations are always accepted. Mr Cohen: Isn’t it customary to say: “Tell that story to the Magistrate.” Witness denied the allegation. Constable Cole then gave corroborative evidence.

In opening the. case for the defence, Mr Cohen said that’ bis four clients were not drinking men, and, as they all held responsible positions, it was not likely that they would wilfully break the law. They had been in the hotel for a lawful: purpose—that of obtaining dinner —and afterwards had been tre&ted as . guests by the management, which action counsel submitted did not make them law-breakers. There had been no sale of liquor.

The Magistrate commented that apparently the men had been lawfully on the premises for the purpose of having dinner, and the question for him to decide was whether their subsequent action in accepting liquor from tho management in other than the dining-room made them unlawfully on the premises. Senior-Sergeant O’Grady pointed out that the men had been extremely reticent in giving their explanation. Mr Cohen : As I pointed out before men are fools to give explanations in these cases. Counsel (hen suid that he proposed to call one witness, and lie invited Senior Sergeant O'Grady to tako his pick of the accused.

Owing to the invitation not being accepted, counsel put one of tho defendants in the box.

Witness gave evidence that the four accused had had dinner in the dining room and hud afterwards, at the proprietress’s invitation, gone into an adjoining room, where drinks had been served by- the manager. When Sergeant Power had arrived it would have been about 8.20 not 7.20, as stated by both police witnesses. Cross-examined bv the senior sergeant, witness stated that the reason why he had been hesitant in giving an explanation to Sergeant Power was because of the fact that lie had been in plain clothes and was not known to witness. Ttio Magistrate reserved his decision.