A LICENSING CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11057, 8 May 1899, Page 6

A LICENSING CASE.

A GOOD FRIDAY " GITT." THE INFORMATION DISMISSED. At tho Auckland Polico Court on Saturday morning, before His Worship Mr. H. S. Wardoll, S.M., Joseph Parkes, the licensee of the Carlton Club Hotel, Newmarket, was charged with committing a broach of the Licensing Act, 1881, by selling beer to Caroline Cheltenham, on Good Friday, at which time the premises are directed to bo oloscd. Sub-Inspector Wilson prosecuted, and Mr. Baumc, for tho defence, pleaded not, guilty. Constable Mackle, stationed at Newmarket, deposed that on Good Friday, March 31, lie was passing the Carlton Club at about seven o'clock in tho evening. Ho went into the hotel and found tho bar open and lighted up The slide-door between the bar and the passage was also open. He saw Mrs. Parkes in the passage, and a young woman, Margaret Parkes. He met the woman, Caroline Cheltenham, walking down the passage, as jf s he had come from the bar. About ten or fifteen minutes beforo ho went into tho Carlton Club ho had seen the woman Cheltenham knocking at tho door of tho Newmarket Hotel. Witness spoke to her in tho passage, his attention being attracted by her holding her skirts in a " bundle." Slio gave him a bottle, which contained beer, and asked him not to got nor into trouble. She told witness that she had seen tho door open, and had not thought it any harm to como 'in, as she felt tired. Mrs. Parkes told witness that the beer was not purchased there. While witness was talking to the woman, either the slide was pulled down, or the light in tho bar was put out. Tho light in the room next the bar was also put out. Witness went into tho room where Parkes was, hut did not speak to him about the matter. Mrs. Cheltenham said sho did not know from which of the two sisters (the licensee's daughters) sho had bought the beer. A day or two after witness went into the hotel, and told Mary Parkes (tho defendant's eldest daughter, who practically managed the hotel for him, as he was an invalid) that Mrs. Cheltenham did not know from which of tho sisters sho had got the beer. Miss Parkes said that sho had given the beer to Mrs. Cheltenham, and that she did not think there was any harm in it, as Good Friday was not the same as Sunday. Cross-examined: Witness could not say what particular clay ho spoke to Miss Parkes. Caroline Cheltenham said that sho did not pay for tho beer then or afterwards. Miss Parkes had made''it a present to her, saying thai she could not take anything for it, as she could not sell liquor on Good Friday. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Sub-Inspector Wilson drew the Bench's attention to the case Sohulthers v. Wilson, in which Mr. lioetham, S.M., had held thai the evidence of beer being given as a present could be disbelieved, and tho " gift" construed into the nature of a sale. Tho enso had been appealed upon, and Iho Supreme Court had upheld the Magistrate's decision. His Worship said thero was evidence of a supply for ronsumption off the premises. Did that constitute an offence? Thero were certain gifts that could be construed into the nature of a sale. Ho would hear tho evidence of Miss Parkes. Mary Parkes deposed that Mrs. Cheltenham liad not paid her at any time for tho beer. The beer was a gift. Mrs. Cheltenham had offered to pay on the day in question, and again the next day, but witness had refused the money. Mrs. Cheltenham was an old customer. [lis Worship: Is she a regular customer for a present on Sunday? Witness: No; she never comes on Sun-

day. Cross-examined: Witness lit up the bar to draw the beer, and llion turned the gas out again. His Worship, when giving judgment, said that the effect of the case quoted by the sub-inspector was very plain. It was there held that a magistrate, might, if his own conscience justified him in the matter, pet aside all the evidence which might be ad(lured to show that no sale was made; or that he might infer from the fact of liquor being supplied that a. sale had taken place. That was to say, it had boon held that ho was entitled, in the face of evidence to tho contrary, from the simple fact of supply of liquor, to hold that a sale had been effected. His Worship considered that it must be a very uxtromo case indeed, according to his view of the matter, which would load a magistrate to filch an inference. The magistrate must be satisfied, His Worship thought, that such a thing as a gift did not occur. Then, while His Worship realised the gifts of the article in which an individual dealt were very rare indeed, ho was not prepared to hold that in the case of licensees gifts wore not very frequent. There was no other class of business, that he was aware of, in which dealers in particular commodities wero so ready to make presents of the vcrv commodity in which they dealt. His Worship's official life had made him a resident in hotels to a very great extent, and his eyes had not been shut. He knew, as a matter of' fact, that gifts of liquor from hotelkeepers were not very rare things. His Worship then reviewed the evidence bofore him, and pointed out that the pari wire old friends, and that Mrs. Cheltenham was the only person, apart from the licensee's family, found about the premises on Hood Friday by the constable. Looking upon the facts and tho evidence before him, be was not prepared to bold luat this was a case in which the liquor was not a gift. The information was then dismissed.