THE NORTHCOTE HOTEL AGAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9102, 10 July 1888, Page 6

THE NORTHCOTE HOTEL AGAIN.

At the Police Court yesterday, before Messrs. Collins and Wilding, a charge was heard against Mr. James Fraser, licensee of the Northcote Hotel, under the Licensing Act, 1&S1, section 124. This section provides that hotelkeepers shall keep a light burning before the hotel all night. It was charged that on June 29 this section was violated, and the light in front of the hotel was out. Inspector Broham appeared for the police, and Mr. Baume for Mr. Fraser. Edward Bird, shoemaker in Auckland, said he was at Northcote on the 29th of June. He had gone over there on business. While at Northcote he was near the Northcote Hotel, and noticed that the lamp was out. This was a little after nine o'clock. In cross - examination by Mr. Baume, the witness stated he had business there. He saw Brassey on that night. He conversed with Brassey, but did not talk about the Northcote Hotel, or about the lamp being out. He was not in Brassey's house. He was certain he did not have some beer in Brassey's house. James Mincher, a shoemaker at Northcote, deposed that he also kept a coal and firewood yard. On the night of June 29th, as he was looking up his yard a little after nine oclock, Brassey came to him and drew his attention to the fact that the lamp in front of the Northcote Hotel was not | lighted. Brassey asked witness to notice ' it. He would not have noticed it if Brassey had not called his attention to it. In crossexamination the witness said he did not see Brassey near the hotel, and did not see him go up to the lamp and put it out. Henry Lepper, a shoemaker, was also called for the prosecution, but on being questioned could not say whether the lamp was out or not on the evening of the 29th of June. In cross-examination the witness said that on that evening he went to the Northcote Hotel to get some beer. He went there at Brassey's request. Brassey fetched witness out of doors to go to the hotel to get some beer for him, and told him to notice the lights. Brassey did not ask him particularly to notice the light outside the hotel, and he did not do so, as Brassey had not asked him. When he returned he told Brassey there were any amount of lights inside the hotel. On that evening Brassey had paid witness some money, 2s, and witness had been told he was very lucky to get it. (Laughter, in which Mr. Brassey joined loudly.) Constable O'Brien testified that the light in the lamp in front of the Northcote Hotel was out on the evening of June 29th. This was the case for the prosecution. During a brief cross-examination of last witness Mr. Baume had alluded to Mr. Brassey inferentially by turning towards him, when the latter said, " Don't turn to me, Mr. Baume." Mr. Baume (suiting the action to the word): " Very well, then, I'll turn my back on you." Mr. Brassey: " Your back is the worst part of you." Mr. Baume: "I know that, Mr. Brassey." Mr. Baume then addressed the Bench in opening the case for the defence. In doing so he stated that the origin of the case was private malice and spite, and this he believed was evident to the Bench, as it must be to all unprejudiced observers. It was another of those prosecutions got up by Brassey against Fraser. A few days ago there had been two cases brought against Fraser of selling and supplying during prohibited hours, the origin of which was clearly traceable to Brassey's enmity, and a witness (Mr. Moss Davis, owner of the hotel) had then sworn that

Brassey had gone to Mr. Davis, and advised him to get rid of Fraser, threatening to make it hot for Fraser if he (Davis) did not do so. These persecutions were the result of Brassey's enmity to Fraser, and Brassey was trying to wreak his vengeance and spite on Fraser, and have his revenge, because Fraser had stopped his credit at the hotel.

James Fraser, licensee of the Noithcote Hotel, and defendant in the case, was sworn, and testified that he knew Brassey, and had had a conversation with him previous to this case. Mr. Fraser was proceeding to state what the conversation was, when Inspector Broham raised an objection that the conversation had related to previous matters, and had no connection with the present case. Mr. Baume urged that while it might relate to previous matters it was relevant to this case, as it showed the reason for the prosecution, and why it was brought—the enmity of Brassey to Fraser. The Bench ruled the matter out, but pointed out that the fact that the lamp had been unlighted had been proved ; also that the license put in (that for the year ending June 30) bore an endorsement exempting the licensee of the Northcote Hotel from the provisions of section 124 of the Licensing Act, which relates to the question of keeping the light burning. Inspector Broham said this fact was new to him, and he was totally unaware of it, and it had taken him by surprise. He asked to see the license, and when it was

handed to him designated the endorsement as a " trick." He averred that the endorsement was not on the license when he saw the license handed in in the cases heard a few days ago. With an exemption like that on the license the case should never have been brought. Mr. Baume : Exactly so. Inspector Broham called for the license produced in the other cases. Mr. Baume: The alleged offence was said to have been committed on June 29, and the license that carried that date was the one put in. The new license could be produced, but it had nothing to do with June 29, but only began on July 1. Mr. Broham here asserted that the endorsement on the license was a recent one, and had been put on it since the information had been laid and the proceedings commenced in the case, and this it was he designated as a "trick " and "disgraceful." He requested that Sergeant Gillies be put in the witness-box. Sergeant Gillies stepped into the box but Mr. Bourne objected, saying it was his time, and he was conducting the defence, and Sergeant Gillies did not give his evidence. Mr. Baume, proceeding with his defence, called

George Nathaniel Brassey, who deposed lie was a solicitor practising in Anrkland. He believed he lived at Northcote. and believed he had lived there four or five

! years. He knew Fraser, but could not say I how long he bad known him. | Mr. Baume began to press the witness as to i j being more explicit, and not merely answer ! he " believed" this and that, whereupon the j witness told Mr. Baume that he should stand no nonsense from him, and would ' ! answer to the best of his belief. Mr. . Baume insisted on the witness not'fencing with questions, ? but answering them properly. Cross - examination ~ continued : Witness said he had been in the North cote > Hotel and had had a conversation with Fraser on matters connected with witness' ' credit at the hotel. The witness here de- ' manded to be allowed to explain this answer, and was proceeding to state a transaction with the previous licensee when Mr. Baume objected that matters between witness and a previous licensee had nothing to do with the case, and the cross-examination * proceeded. Witness had not asked credit at the hotel, and did not want it. The defendant had been impertinent to him. Witness had been to Mr. Moss Davis, and told him that he had better get Fraser out of the hotel, or other people would do so for him. He had told Davis of the disgraceful Sunday trading going on there. Witness also said he had spoken to others about the light being out on the evening in question. Mr. Baume here asked the witness if he had not put the light out himself. Witness : Did you put it out ? Mr. Baume : Mr. Brassey, I ask you to say whether you did or did not yourself put that light out ? The witness said the question was a deratling one, and did not answer it, saying e should appeal to the Bench to protect him against such questions. Inspector Broham also urged that the question was a degrading one, and it was not further pressed. The Witness did nob answer the question definitely while in the box, but as he was stepping out of it he said to Mr. Baume, '' If you want to know, I tell you no." ■ n This closed the evidence for the defence. Inspector Broham asked that Sergeant Gillies be called, and this the Bench allowed. Sergeant Gillies deposed he knew nothing of the endorsement being on the license, but he had had a conversation with Fraser on June 6th, when Fraser told him he was going to have it endorsed. In cross-ex-" amination, Sergeant Gillies reiterated the evidence he gave in the previous cases as to the hotel having been conducted well and orderly. Mr. Parrish, one of the licensing committee of the Northcote district, was put in the box to prove the signatures. He admitted his own. Being asked for the names of the committee, he remembered those of Messrs. Quick, Button, Falkner, Captain Slattery. At this point it was discovered that this, year's (from July Ist) committee had endorsed the exemption of the licensee of Northcote Hotel from section 124 of the Act, on last year's (up to June 30) license, which was the license in force on the night of the alleged breach of the Act. Part of this year's committee were same as last year's.

Mr. Baume here stated that this they admitted, and that the object of the endorsement, which had been made since the present proceedings were begun, was a protest in the best way they could think of against these proceedings. The Bench said it was evident the endorsement was not a valid one, and it was also evident that a breach of the law had been committed as to the light being out on June 29, although not a serious one. They would therefore only inflict a light fine of 5s and costs. The Bench also, in answer to Mr. Baume, said they perfectly understood the meaning of the protest, and also the present proceedings.