THE LICENSING ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7591, 22 March 1886, Page 5

THE LICENSING ACT.

ADMISSION OF THE POLICE. At the Police Court on Saturday morning, before Mr. H. G. Seth Smith, R.M., an important case affecting the Licensing Aot was brought on, in the form of a prosecution against the licensee of the Shamrock Hotel, Wellesley-atreet, for failing to admit the police when knocking for admission. Johanna Sullivan (adjourned from Wednesday) ' was charged with a breaoh of the Licensing Act, 1881, section 185, by refusing to admit a sergeant of police to her licensed premises in Wellesley-street, on March 7. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the defendant, ond pleaded not guilty. In opening the case, Sergeant Pratt said the police were in the habit of visiting the hotels on Sundays. The sergeants acted as inspectors under the Act, and oould go round and inspect houses. On Sunday. Marsh 7. Sergeant MoMahon, accompanied by Constable Donovan, visited the house of the defendant, in Wellesleystreet, and knocked for admission. Mrs. Sullivan came to the door, looked out, and immediately shut the door, saying, " Wait awhile." The sergeant knocked for some time, and no response was given, till a boarder looked, and let them in. It would, Sergeant Pratt said.be apparent to His Worship that during all that time something was going on inside contrary to the Aot. Section 185 of the Act provided for the regular admission of the police at any time. Sergeant McMahon deposed that he visited several hotols in the city on Sunday, March 7. He was accompanied by Constable Donovan. He knooked at the defendant's door about noon on March 7. She came to 'the door, partly opened it, said " Wait awhile, " smiled, and went away, closing the door very abruptly as she went away. She did not ask who was there, bnt simply said " Walt awhile," and went away. To His Worship : Both of them were in uniform. A minute and a-half elapsed till a person named Hamilton,who said he was a boarder, opened tbe door. A niau named Kirkwood, against whom there was a prohibition order out, and another named Heaps were there at the time. Hamilton had a pint of " shandygaff before him. To Sergeant Pratt: There was no appearance of Mrs. Sullivan during the whole time, and they left. He had visited other houses previously, and also the premises of the defendant, but did not remember the date. On one occasion he cautioned her for having a person the worse of liquor in the house at the time. Cross-examined : He was certain that it was Mrs. Sullivan who came to the door. It was not for the fear of Mrs. Sullivan not giving him drink that he knocked, as he was not in the habit of drinking on Sundays. Constable Donovan deposed to accompanying the previous witness to the house. When the defendant was in the act of closing the door, the sergeant put his hands on it, saying at the same time "Leave us in, woman, leave us in." It was a door which opened from the centre. He heard her turn a look or bolt. This was the case for the prosecution, Mr. Cotter, for the defence, said the information most be dismissed, on the ground of a case already proved before His Worship, in which His Worship decided. It was a similar case to the one in question, and wan Police v. Lynch, of the Alexandra Hotel. Parnell, when he (Mr. Cotter) had raised the same objection that the demand must be made as laid down in the Act. [Mr. Cotter quoted section 185 as follows :—" Every person who, by himself, or by any person in his employ or acting by his direction, or with his consent, refuses or fails to admit without any unnecessary delay any constable in the execution of his duty, demanding to enter in pursuance of this section, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence £5, and not exceeding for the second and every subsequent offence £10."] Bis Worshiphad dismissed the case, as the demand had not been made. As it was not made in the present instance, he submitted the defendant did .not come under the penalties of the Act. His Worship : Have you seen Justice Williams' recent decision on the point? He ruled to the contrary, that it was not necessary to make the demand. I thought it was, but I must now be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Cotter replied that he bad not seen the decision of Mr. Justice Williams. The publicans were now going on the ruling of His Worship in the case against Lyncb. His Worship said he would have been quite willing to follow his former ruling, but he was afraid he must now be guided by the recent decision. Mr. Cotter said he was not then prepared to meet such decision, as he had relied on the previous ruling of His Worship. He would have to apply for an adjournment. Mr. Cotter then 1 went on to quote the formula pursued under the Adulteration of Food Act, when the inspector required samples of milk to test. His Worship said he was willing that the matter should stand over. Sergeant Pratt drew attention to the section of the Act which said the police must enter to detect what was going on inside. Mr. Cotter applied for an adjournment for a week. Sergeant Pratt said that in the meantime the police could not enter hotels. His Worship granted the adjournment to enable counsel to cite authorities in support of his contention.