MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue 123, 26 May 1919, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr J. S. Evans. S.M.)

PIER HOTEL CASES.

The adjourned bearing of the tchhrges against Charles Leopold Diamanti, see of the_Pier Hole! .cam© on at th e -Magistrate's Court to-day. The defendant was charged (1} with having on Sunday, April 20th* liquor to Harry Sal vador' Reed j with having, on the same daw, supplied'liquor to Reed, who was apparently tinder the; age of 21 years; (3) with supplying intoxicating liqpor to Reed, which had no> been paid or by the consumer himself : (4) with selling liquor to Harry . Westrupp on the- game date.; (5) with * havin liquor to Harry Westrupp, who was apparently under the age of 21 years; (6j with supplying ''intoxicating liquor to Westrupp which had - not .been paid for by the consumer himself.

Senior-Sergearit Barrett prosecuted , and Mr E." B. Moor© defended. v Evidence was previously jgiven by Reed and Westrupp that they with three otbeiw, had. tea at the Pier Hotel ou April 20th, and that after tea thepewere five rounds of drinks, each paying for one round. The defendant denied that any drinks had been served, and the hearing was adjourned- to take tile evi-. deuce of three men off the steamer R«-

rfttWu* Sydney Evans, steward on the Regains,* said he remembered- April 20th. On tbar after,noor> he and four qthera— Westrupp, Reed, Biyant, and Knapp—went to tea at_the Pier Hotel. -After leaving the dining room they , went put into the street. .Those mentioned andanother man had six quart bottles of beer on the Regains in the afternoon. Diamfuiti didjnpfc ©ome out of the diningroom when the party left. Cross-examined : A bottle of ale would not affect him, as he was used, to drinking. He remembered Constables McKeji < zie and O’Donnell asking him o the 17th May about wbst happei ed on April 20th, He told the constable# at the time that he did not remember .anything. Reed ! and- W estrupp were the only one# -the , liquor on the boat had any effect -on, .Arthur Knapp, cook ol the Regulus, remembered April 20th. After tea ah ' the Pier Hotel they did not go nepr fhe ; bar, and he did not remember 1 havfpg any drink after 'tea. Westrupp tpld him Diamanti swore at him at a-dupce, and that he (Westrupp) was goings op against Diamanli. Witness mentaooed nothing about a fine <Jf 810. , Cross-examined: He told, the epS* stables that he did not remember, hay* ing liquor at the. Pier Hotel. 'lt was four fr’clock in, th§ morning when ih# cops tables saw .him, and ho wa«* not, very clear. He could" not remember whether he came out of the hotel alone the others. He could not remember whether that any of the party went the bar passage. . Charles Bryant, sea-maa on the Regains, remembered Easter Sunday The party of five went to the Pier Hotel loc tea, and a® far as he could they did not go near the bar after tea. There were six of them on the Kegutu», and they drank a bottle of beer each. Cross-examined: The beer was tgieu on board the Regulqf by Evans the day iiefore. He had no recollection of seeing any of the party drinking at_ the slid© of the Pier Hvtet. He was a b»t merry-. •■ • ■ ‘.- , ■ lb Mr Moore: All the party came . straight out of the tog»ther on to the street.- ' William Tredidga gave evidence' that / ■ he went into the, Pier Hotel diningroom for tea on April 20th. He went in . with the licensee. He saw the party of ‘ ' boys go out. Witness left the room perhaps five minutes after the Reguhift boys went out, and JHamanti oaxue out after he ‘did. This concluded the evidence. The Magistrate said there was the evide»ve of the two youths who swore that they were supplied with liquo# ■ _.> AH the witnesses called, that day said had no recollection ol having drinks ■ Two witnesses swore definitely and distinctly that they had drinks and-three said they did not remember. <M tho evidence he must find that the two youths were supplied, and both 355080 under age, and 1 apparently under age. Defendant would be convicted for_ supplying the youths and for selling’Scjoorduring prohibited hours, and bi« license would be endorsed; but the charge of treating by the licensee was not proved. ajnd l Wciuld be dismissedhad been, twice previously convicted within a recent time. On the two charges of selling during orohib’ted hours the defendant was 1 fined £2 on each, with £1 fls> costs. , Ori the two charges of supplying youths under 21 with liquor the defendant, was fined £5 on each, with costs 7s on each,, and the license was endorsed. t In reply to Mr Mooye, the Magistrate said there were two endorsements — one ■; for each of the two charges of supplying to youths.,., t •- \j