MAY SHOUT FOR FRIEND ON SUNDAY

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6920, 28 May 1929, Page 10

MAY SHOUT FOR FRIEND ON SUNDAY

LICENSEE’S PRIVILEGE

A charge of keeping the Princess liolcl, Palmerston North, open l'or the sale of liquor when the promises were required to be closed, preferred in the Palmerston North Magistrate s t'ourt yesterday against the licensee, Air Sh W. P. Evans, was dismissed by the Magistrate, (Mr J. L. Stout S.M.). Sergeant Joyce stated that on April 21 (Sunday), he and Constable Gillard visited defendant's hotel at 10.15 a.m. They entered the private bar through tlie door which was standing open. Defendant and another man were. at. the bar, while, a third man was behind the bar with his. coal. off. Two glasses of liquor and eight shillings in money were on the counter. "Witness asked the man with Evans il he was a lodger to receive an atlinnative reply. ’Witness then asked I lie number of lus room, to which the man replied that ho had not. been allotted one as he had just conic in. Questioned as to who owned the money, defendant said it belonged lo a man who was at the hotel the day before. The man with defendant gave his name as Harrison, of "Waipukurau, and witness obtained a statement from each. .Sergeant Joyce said ho again asked defendant whose the. money was, the latter replying that lie didn’t know it was there until his attention had been drawn to it. The moDOv was directly in front of Harrison and Ss would have been the change from a 10s note had four drinks been served. Air Ougley : Ami Ss would have been the cost of tea, bed, and breaklast ? Witness: I couldn’t, say. Constable Gillard gave evidence in corroboration. Mr Ougley submitted that the charge should be dismussed as there was no evidence that the hotel was open for the sale of liquor. There must be evidence of intent before such a charge could be proved. His Worship agreed with Air OngIcy, but stated that, apart from anything ciso. the explanation given. by the man Harrison that lie was a friend of the licensee and had gone up to see and stay with him, seemed to be the correct one. He was a friend, and it, was surely the privilege of a licensee to “shout” for such a person without bringing himself under a breach of the Act. As far as the bar having been open, it was admitted that the, man behind title counter was scrubbing out, ( and stocking up was also going on. It could not lie maintained under those circumstances that, the bar was open for the sale of liquor. The case was accordingly dismussed.