SUNDAY LIQUOR LAWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9096, 3 July 1888, Page 6

SUNDAY LIQUOR LAWS.

ALLEGED VIOLATION AT NORTH-

COTE HOTEL.

At the Police Court yesterday morning, before Mr. .11. C. Baddeley, R.M., James Fraser, licensee of the Northcote Hotel, was charged on two separate charges with a violation of the Licensing Act, 1881, section 155, by selling and supplying liquor during prohibited hours, viz., between ten p.m. on Saturday, June 9th, and six a.m. on Monday, the 11th, on Sunday, June 10th.

Mr. Baume appeared for the defendant, and pleaded "nob guilty." Inspector Broham conducted the prosecution. ' Alexander Campbell deposed he went to tfe's Northeote Hotel on Sunday, June 10, a little after 1 o'clock for dinner beer, and got it, being supplied by Mr. Fraser himself. He did not pay for it then, but he had paid for it since. In cross-examina-tion, witness jaid he understood that when he got the beer, it was a gift, and hod never told Mr. Fraser he had paid his boy for it. Witness usually got his beer from the brewers or bottlers. When he went to get the beer, he did not go to buy at all, but to ask Mr. Fraser if he would oblige witness with a little beer as he was out of it. He had no intention of buying then. It was only afterwards that he thought that Mr. Fraser ought not to lose by obliging him, and so one day handed a sixpence into Mr. Fraser's boy, saying, "I believe I owe your father sixpence." Witness said the hotel was an admirably conducted one; knew of no Sunday trading there, and thought the hotel had never been under first-class management before. By the Resident Magistrate : Had it been Monday, he would have bought it, but being Sunday, he did not buy or intend to buy, because he believed if Mr. Fraser had sold him beer on that day he would have been violating the law, and he did not desire to have him do so, as an obligation. At the moment he got the beer, he had no idea of paying for it. The paying was merely an after-thought. Before he got the beer, witness said distinctly, "lam not going to pay for the beer," and made Mr. Fraser understand it was a gift. Sergeant Gillies deposed to the fact of the hotel being in the Northeote Licensing District, and that the hotel had been thoroughly well conducted, there having been no complaint of the house before, since Mr. Fraser had it. This was the case.

Mr. Baume addressed the Resident Magistrate on behalf of the defendant, contending the evidence disclosed no offence. The giving of the beer was merely an obligation, and no sale. The beer' was given, and Mr. Fraser did not know of the paying. James Fraser, the defendant, deposed that Mr. Campbell asked him to "oblige him with a little beer," and added, " I don't intend to pay for it." Witness had never heard any more of the matter from that day till the case was brought, and did not know that payment had been made. Witness' instructions to his employes were, that they must nob sell to anyone on Sundays except travellers. During the hearing of the case, it transpired that Mr. Campbell had, on leaving the hotel, seen Mr. Brassey, and the defence suggested that the case had been brought because Mr. Brassey had animus against Mr. Fraser, whereupon Mr. Madden rose and said he had been instructed to appear for Mr. Brassey. Mr. Baume submitted that this very circumstance proved the fact. Ia reply to Mr. Baume, witness said he understood clearly that giving the beer was an obligation, because he had no beer at home.

Harry Fraser, an eleven-year-old son of Mr. Fraser, deposed that Mr. Campbell did not pay him anything. Mr. Campbell came into the house, and got (id worth of beer, but did not pay for it, Mr. Campbell saying Mrs. Fraser owed him something, and it would be all right. , The second case was then taken.

Mr. Madden here said he had been instructed by Messrs. Erassey and Mcllhone to appear for them. Mr. Baume again pleaded not guilty. Mr. Mcllhone was called by Inspector Broham as a witness for the police. He deposed that he met Mr. Hurley on the 10th June outside the Northcote Hotel, and that Mr. Hurley entered the hotel afterwards, as did witness. They had something to drink in the hotel, and witness paid 7d for the beer for the two. No questions were asked as to whether he was a traveller or not, bub it was probable the lady who served him knew he was a traveller. Witness lived over four mites from the hotel, and he had said he came from Auckland. Witness was well known at Xorthcote. In cross examination, witness went over to see Patsy Heath. He met James Hurley; asked Hurley had he seen Heath. Hurley replied, "No ; perhaps he's in the pub and they went into the hotel together to look for him. Witness ordered two " beers," and paid for them.

.James Hurley made a statement to the same effect, saying Mr. Mcllhone gave him the beer.

Sergeant Gillies proved the hotel was in the Northcote Licensing District; and, in cross-examination, said the case was laid by the police from " information received." ..

Mr. Baume contended that there was no offence. Liquor could be sold to travellers, and that if travellers chose to give the liquor to anybody else they had a right to, as the Act made no restrictions as to consumption. He quoted Pine v. Barnes 20 La.w Reports, Queen's Bench Division, p. 1221. This decision was to the effect that, a lodger could entertain his friends, and give them liquor, and that a traveller was equally privileged. The Resident Magistrate asked what was to prevent a licensee hiring a bona fide traveller to travel to his hotel, and then buy beer and give it to non-travellers ? Mr. Baume replied an amendment to the law, and, till that amendment was made, they must take and construe the Act as it stood.

The Resident Magistrate said there was, or ' should be, such a thing as common sense in this matter ?

Mr. Baume replied that Baron Pollock ha/l ruled that if a lodger bought the liquor hei could do what he liked with it, and by a parity of reasoning, all the arguments that could apply to a lodger would apply to a traveller.

The Resident Magistrate held the cases were different, and said he would hear the defence.

Mr. Baume again alleged that the case was one of personal spite on Mr. Brassey's part, and he would like to be allowed to prove this. He had subpoenaed Mr. Brassey, who had not come.

The Resident Magistrate said Mr. Baurae, as a lawyer, knew how to get Mr. Brassey into Court, and the Court could not be made a means of showing up outside parties to any case. The defendant, .Tames Fraser, again said his instructions to his employes were only to sell on Sunday to travellers, and he had no cognisance of Mcllhone and Hurley getting the liquor. Margaret Fraser, wife of the licensee of the Northcote Hotel, deposed that she did not serve Hurley but Mcllhone with the liquor. Witness knew Mcllhone to be a traveller. Mcllhone paid for it. Mr. Baume called Geo. Nathaniel Brassoy, but there was no appearance. Mr. Madden said the defence had neither tendered conduct money, nor had the subpoena gone through the hands of the police. The Resident Magistrate said it was not necessary it should go through the hands of the police, and he was surprised that Mr. Brassey, as a member of the profession, was not present. Mr. Baume then called Mr. Moss Davies, who deposed that he owned the Northcote Hotel, of which Mr. Fraser was licensee. Witness had had no' complaints of Fraser, except from Mr. Brassey, who had come to witness and asked witness to discharge Mr. Fraser, saying if he did not he would make it hob for him, and got him out of fcite house. Witness took no notice of Brassey, who again came and told witness lie would give him another chance. Witness replied that he had no fault to find with Mr. Fraser, and he would take no notice of Brassey's complaints. A few days after this the complaints were laid against the house. By Inspector Broham,: Witness had heard that a petition was being got up against this hotel. It was being got up, he heard, by Mr. Brassey, who had got four or five names to the petition, and the petition had been started, ho believed, since these charges were laid.

Captain Slattery, chairman of the Northcote Licensing Committee, and of the Road Board, deposed that the hotel had never been better conducted. - It was conducted well, and was a credit to the place. This was the case lor the defence. r . Mr. Baume then briefly addressed the Court for the defendant, quoting Somerset v. Hart (12 " Law Reports," Queen's Bench Division, p. 3%), and Newman v. Jones (17, " Law Reports," Queen's Bench Division, p. 132). The Resident Magistrate reserved his decisions till Wednesday. • ■..