HOTEL RAIDED

Northern Advocate, 27 November 1928, Page 8

HOTEL RAIDED

LICENSEE IN COURT. SEVERAL CHARGES LAID. As the result of a police raid, on November 3, several informations, arising out of breaches of the Licensing Act 1908, and the Bale of Liquor Reduction Act 1917, were laid before Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., at the Whangarei Court this morning.

Arnold Smith Curtis and Alexander Fraser were charged with being found on licensed premises after such were required to be closed.

Albert. Joseph Dawson, the holder of publican’s license, in respect of the Settlers’ Hotel, was charged with selling liquor to Arnold Curtis and Alexander Fraser during the time such licensed premises were required to be closed; also with exposing liquor for sale on licensed premises after hours>

Charges of supplying intoxicating liquor to Arnold Curtis and Alexander Fraser, when they were not entitled lawfully to be supplied, were preferred against Vaughan Mair Gray, a person other than the licensee. Dawson pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Senior-Sergeant o'Grady outlined the case for the police and stated that on the evening in question there had been a dinner hold at the Settler's Hotel in honour of the Commerce Train party. In accordance with law all the guests were out of the diningroom at 8 p.m. At 8.40 o'clock seeing lights, and hearing voices in the bar witness, in company with Constable Holt, entered to find, six persons gathered round the bar counter. Curtis, MeCarroll and Fraser, each had an empty glass in front of them, Dawson bad one half full in his hand, and Jones, a travelling photographer, also had an empty glass in front of him. Witness asked the licensee why the hotel was not closed, Dawson replying that they had been very busy after the Chamber of Commerce dinner, and he had just come in to clean up. Asked why the barman, and the others were in the bar, Dawson refrained from replying.

To the magistrate: There was nothing to indicate the necessity of cleaning up.

Curtis had a small parcel in his hand, and when his name was taken by the Constable, said he had come to deliver it. Fraser had no excuse to offer. Jones said he had just arrived by the late train, and was in room No. 2. .Subsequent investigation showed that there was no entry in the proper column in the daybook, but on a blank page opposite was written "Jones No. 2.” Subsequently Mrs Dawson, explained that the night porter was in the habit of jotting down names on the blank sheet, for her to fill in later.

When the police left, five minutes after entering, the persons were still in the bar, which, was lighted up.

Cross examined the Senior-Sergeant admitted that he was not sure whether the office was open when they entered. The dining-room was unlighted, and only eight dirty glasses were on the bar counter. There certainly were not a 100 brought in from the diningroom, as suggested by counsel. He did not know definitely what was in Curtis ’ parcel, but thought it was laundry.

‘ ‘ Can you see through a. paper parcel, then?” asked counsel, “or what makes you think it Avas laundry?” “I presume it was,” replied the police officer.

“You presume a lot, in that ease,’ commented the solicitor.

Tfye Senior-Sergeant said that during Mr Dawson’s four years’ regime the Settlers' Hotel had been conducted in a very .'satisfactory manner. Unfortunately Mr DaAvson's health had not been of the best, and recently things had become a little lax’

Counsel submitted that of a Saturday evening Mr Dawson usually left the premises Avith his wife, but the Senior-Sergeant did not altogether agree with this, as he said lights AA T ore often seen in the bar on Saturday evening. Presumably customers were being served, and the licensee aa’£is the only one empowered to do this.

Constable Holt corroborated, the evulence-in-chief. In ans Aver to questions lie stated that Dawson had remarked “it is hard to jump on a man on a big night” and he also said something about £< being hounded from all quarters.” He did not notice Mrs Dawson Avrite any name in the daybook Avhilst it AA r .as being examined. He was not sure whether the dining-room was lighted or not. He iutervieAA r cd Dawson the next day and asked him to explain McCanoil’s presence on the

premises particularly ana uausou nau made a written statement to the effect that McCarroll was an especial friend who had helped him prepare for the

big dinner and was his (Dawson’s) private guest. On the Monday he had made application to inspect the daybook in order to verify McCarroll’a contention that he had been a boarder in the house for a fortnight, but was refused. Dawson was frank about the matter and said McCarroll’s name was not on the book as although he had been staying in the house he was a private and not a paying guest.

At this stage tlui Senior-Sergeant wished to put in a■■ written statement by McCarroll but he was sharply rebuked by the Bench who remarked “You can’t produce a statement written by another man in defendant’s absence—that is not evidence.”

Counsel for the defendant submitted that there was not evidence of sale to either Curtis or Fraser and those charges should be struck out. In regard to the other charges he pointed out that his client had conducted the hotel in an exemplary manner for four years and on the night in question liquor was consumed from bottles in the dining room. This liquor and all glasses had been drawn from the stock in the bar and it was necessary that what remained unopened he transferred back to stock. In order to do this two assistants Cahill and Gray, employees, had assisted Dawson and it was necessary that the bar be open. Curtis had taken a parcel of biscuits to the hotel for Mrs Dawson and Fraser had brought a suit for the licensee. The office being closed and seeing a light along the passage these men had found their way into the bar, McCarroll, who had boon helping Dawson in connection with the function that night, was a private guest. Jones w r as a bona fide boarder and entitled to be in the bar.

. A. J. Dawson, the licensee, stated that after the dinner was over at about 7.50 p.m., the staff then started to dismantle the arrangements in the dining room, which had to be specially constructed. The glasses and liquor were supplied from the bar and after the dinner what liquor was left over had to be returned to stock. Cahill and Gray, two employees, assisted. The dining room was returned to noi’mal about 0 o’clock. It was not clear when the police paid their visit. There was no light in the office. The SeniorSergeant came into the bar and said: "What is the meaning of this?” Witness replied "I am doing no wrong.” Jones on being asked for the number of his room had said "No. 2.” The reason for Jones' name being on the opposite page was that Mrs Dawson was busy and a day porter had booked him in. Mrs Dawson had said, as she came down the stairs, that Jones' room was "No. 2.” She then opened the office door, put the light on and showed the Senior-Sergeant the number. The only person in then who had a drink was Jones. The drink witness had in front of him was with Jones. Gray at this time was sitting on the counter. Witness had served Jones. Gray! was packing the .stuff away, witness was checking it and Cahill was bringing it in from the dining room, Witd ness went to the dining room to see what was left. Curtis and Fraser! were not in the bar when he left.

To the Senior-Sergeant: Jones’ bag and baggage were not in the bar with him, but witness could not say whether he had taken charge of his room. He had not asked Curtis and Eraser their business nor made any attempt to remove them from the hotel as the Senior-Sergeant eamc in right on top of him (Dawson)'. Curtis never had a drink. There were no bottles on the counter when the police came in because thpy had been packed away on the shelves underneath. Gray and Cahill never had liquor to his knowledge. There were about 130 guests catered for with liquor in the dining| room. All tire 'guests bad left by 81 o’clock. The whole staff with two extra girls were working. He did notj know what time Curtis stopped work that night. He never saw a glass in front of Eraser or McOarroll. The bar was lit up and liquor was exposed. Fraser had come down to the hotel' with: a suit for witness. He had not boon asked to explain the presence of Curtis and Eraser in the bar. He did not hear the Senior-Sergeant ask Curtis ami Fraser what they were doing in the bar. At the time he did not know what Curtis was doing on the premises. Eraser brought the suit down and Avitness had put it in the

bottle department, Jones had probably had his dinner before going into the bar. Quiggins, the day porter, had put Jones’ name an the daybook.

Curtis and Fraser did not remain in

the bar after the visit of the police. MjeOarroll did not stay at the hotel

that night

TECHNICAL BREACH PROVED. Vaughan Gray, a barman at the Settlers’ Hotel, said that after the dinner he was engaged in clearing up the bar. In answer to the Bench, witness said he w'as in the bar from the time the dinner finished. Syphons, dirty glasses and bottles w’ere brought to him there. Just previous to the police coming in, witness was sitting on the counter, having finished most of the cleaning up. He sold no drinks after eight o’clock. Curtis and Fraser entered the bar a few minutes before the raid. Neither asked for, nor w T ere served liquor. Replying to the Senior-Sergeant W’itness said he (lid not supply liquor to Jones, and did not see Dawson drinking beer. Plenty were coming in and out bringing things from the dining room. Some small bottles w r ere brought in after the police left. McCarroll w'as assisting to carry the things. Dawson was in the bar when Fraser came in. Witness did not see Daw'son and Fraser leave the bar. Jones w’as the first to enter the bar, but witness did not notice the others come in. Glasses were spread all over the counter when the police arrived. The clean glasses were piled in a stack at one corner of the bar. Gray said it was only on special occasions, such as after a W’edding or a dinner, that he returned to the hotel after six J’elock.

The Senior-Sergeant asked who had supplied liquor in the evenings wdiilo Mr Dawson had been ill?

Witness repeated that he rarely stayed in the hotel until late at night.

Counsel for Dawson tlieu asked for an adjournment to call Fraser and Curtis, whom he thought the police would be calling. The Senior-Sergeant submitted that If these two did not appear to answer the charges against them it was equivalent to their pleading guilty. At this stage the Magistrate indicated that no proof of selling or exposing for sale, had been proved on the evidence before the court. Regarding the keeping of premises open the law, he thought, rather stringently made it incumbent upon the licensee to prevent unauthorised persons from entering through the private entrance and making their way to the bar. Regarding Jones, he became a bona fide lodger immediately he registered. There was no evidence of supply except to Dawson and Jones,

The Senior-Sergeant quoted several cases dealing with similar circumstances and submitted that the evidence warranted a conviction.

The charges of selling a‘hd exposing liquor for sale were dismissed. In connection with the third charge of keeping premises open after closing hours, it was assumed that the front door was kept open for the convenience of guests, but a special duty devolved upon licensees to keep unauthorised persons from entering. The evidence showed that Dawson kept the hotel excellently, and it bore •a fine reputation. He was technically guilty of keeping premises open, and a nominal penalty of £1 with 10/ costs was imposed.

THE OTHER CASES,

The cases against Gray were withdrawn by the police. Fraser and Curtis, who were not in attendance pleaded guilty through counsel, who said his clients were both at the hotel on business. Hearing voices and seeing lights they had been drawn to the bar.

The Senior-Sergeant said both were of excellent character, and lie had never seen either in a bar previously. Defendants were convicted, lined 10/ and ordered to pay costs 10/, •