BREACH OF THE LICESING ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11059, 10 May 1899, Page 6

BREACH OF THE LICESING ACT.

THE ONEHUNGA CASE. ;|f| ; At the Oneliunga Polica Court yesterday,. ! before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., an importantl decision under tho Licensing Act was give At the last sitting ol the Oneliunga; Police d ] Court Stephen Keogh, holding a temporary ' t license of the Manukau Hotel, Queen-street | I Oneliunga, was charged with keeping his i house open for the sale of liquor during pro, | hibited hours, on Saturday, April 8, last. I Sergeant Greene prosecuted, and Mr. Bauma I defended. After hearing evidence His Won ' ship reserved his decision. Yesterday li 9 j gave judgment as follows: — - The information charges, under section 117 ■ | lof the Licensing Act, 1881, that the defen, !' dant, the licensee of the Manukau Hotel, at £ Oneliunga, kept his house open during pro, ; f hibitee* hours for the sale of liquor. Tfo { ovidenco disclosed that tlio local policj j visited the hotel at from ten to fifteen ; 1 'minutes past eleven p.m. the closing hour ! at Onehunga, being ten p.m.—on Saturday, I April 8 last. They found the front or prin. jf cipal entrance to the house wide open, and | the passage into which it opened lighted up. In a room of! the passage, next to tie 2 i bar, called in the evidence indifferently tig S taproom and bar-parlour, which was Jhtf'f | lighted up, there were four men. Two of jj them wore sitting at atable, on which there I wero two pewtor measures. One named Stewart, said to be a seafaring man, was ob. served to drink twice from one o( ; tho pewters, which there is BQ : pretence for denying contained beer, \ Tho other, named McGrath, a res'u. ? dent of Onchung',, was not observed to drink, and denied that the second pewter was his,' ; This taproom opens by a door directly into. } the bar. The communicating door was open, f and in the doorway stood the other two men, , | partially in the bar and partially in the tap- j room. Tho defendant had been in the bar, ' and was in the act of coming out when the jj police entered the taproom. The bar was i dimly lighted with a candle, and the light \ transmitted from the taproom. Of the two ?■ } men in tho doorway, one, named Cunning. ■ ham, was a resident of Onehunga, the other, I named Colquhoun, was a resident at j Mangere, over, three miles distant. In an-':, ; other room, on the other side of the passage, ? i called tho commercial-room, the police sub- \ sequently found four men. One .ai s any rate was a resident of One. ; | hunga, tho other threo were probably,, travellers. There was no drink oi' sign of drinking observed in this room. With regard to the presence in the taproom Stewart, who was not called as a witness, had been in the hotel drinking during the day. He had had some slight solid refresh* ment, but no set meal. He stayed the night at the hotel, and the next following (Son* day) night, but he had given no indication : that ho intended to stay, and did not engage' a bed until after the police had departed on ' the Saturday night. ilctiratU stated that , lie was a man engaged on the wharf, and that ho was spending the time until the arrival of some expected steamor. Colquhoun said be came in to inquire when a steamer was expected. Both these men entered by the front door, I infer, after closing hours, with, out let or hindrance. Cunningham made no pretence to explain his presence. He was j : simply there. These constitute the main " facts in proof. Somo further significant cir« 1 cumstance, however, were elicited from the T defendant himself. He had closed his hoiisa at ten o'clock by shutting the outer bar door, I and the front or main entrance door. Some-'.' } one (he did not say who it was) reopened ■ % the front door, and ho, knowing it was re- . $ opened, allowed it to remain open. Ha | does not pretend that he at any time re- f quested visitors to leave the house. He also, I at 10 o'clock, closed the bar by shutting the ! slides and the door communicating directly X with the taproom. Some little time aft if.' f wards, however, he opened this door again, V and re-entered tho bar for the purpose, he i; says, of making up his cash. This operation ' ; took some fifteen or twenty minutes, he says,"; ] but being completed, his business in the bit | was ended for the night. He had confessedly f no further legitimate business there, never, I theless, on coming out he left the door open, j and as I infer, it remained open thencefor- j ward until the visit of the police. He i admits to having finally gone into the bar! jj again. He was quito unable to explain Why" Is he was in the bar just before tho.,visit a! ■ I the police. It is true the defendant denied ' l havine served the man Stewart with liquor jj after ten o'clock, but the situation was, in' 3 his own words, "very suspicious.' The prin- s ciples which are applicable to this state of | facts do not in my opinion admit of serious $ doubt. That the defendant's house was open' § in the ordinary, and so to say physical sense i; of tho word _is manifest,' but this > fact is by itself insufficient since. ] the offence consists in the keeping open ? for the sale of liquor. But the fact, that I the house was opened in this ordinary sense, '■■■■ although, not I venture to think, necessary,■ I to the proof of the offence, is. when present, 1 % always a material step in the proof, and : fi one whose cogency only varies with tie" 1 1 other circumstances. Thero must always [V be some evidence of an intention to sell 1 liquor, but as I think evidence of the actual' B sale of liquor, which would constitute' ? another offence, is necessary, so long as the I Court can collect from the whole evidence, as a necessary inference that liquor to k supplied to 0: was obtainable by persons § not legally entitled to it, after closing hoars. i § then ought such an inference to ha drawn '' in the present case? I think it. must, and 1 ought. As to the man Stuart, two points i were made- First, that, he was a ledge:. | and second, that no liquor was supplied | to him after ten o'clock. Having regard I t' all the circumstances, I have no diS- I culty in coming to the conclusion that , £ 1 tuart was not," really a lodger" within tin v meaning of the Act, as judicially inter-, I preted; and to accept the statement that;. f: lie was not supplied with liquor after tea;' i 0 clock, I must believe that Stuart had hat • I before him for ■umefching like an hour and a- | inn iter before drinking it. This is putting 3? too great a strain on one's credulity. 'Hi 1 ltject the statement. But further there ! s § auditional evidence from which it may ho"| leasonably deduced that the defendant,, i! I lie had not actually sold, was prepared to 1 soli liquor. For what is the reasonable de- j auction from the 'incontroverted facts—that " £ the frcnt door was knowingly reft invitingly. - § open; that the bar was opeu; that the do- 1 teiidant was 111 the l.ar, confessedly without .; I legitimate business, and that at the bar and ■ (s elsewhere in the house there wero found per- £ sons to whom the house was legally barred?; I "Ulely that the bar was open for the sals?. £ ot liquor, file defendant is convicted, and ? | fined 40s, and costs 13a. W. I