PROHIBITION ORDERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13081, 22 January 1906, Page 6

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

PUBLICANS AND THE LICENSING ACT. REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE. A DISCUSSION arose in the Police Court on Saturday morning concerning the provisions of the new Licensing Act, in reference to supplying prohibited person.- with liquor, and the opinion was expressed by Mr. Kettle, S.M.. that the Act ought to be more strictly enforced. The comment arose out of a case in which William O'Brien, a prohibit**! person, was charged with being on the licensed premises of the Empire and City Hotels on December 18 last, during the currency of the prohibition order

Mr. London, who appeared for the defendant, pointed out what he claimed was a gross injustice to the defendant in charging him with an offence similar to that he had been convicted for previously and on the same date. Defendant was fined £3 on December 18 last, for having been found on the licensed premises of the Empire Hotel on December 16, and also 103 for being drunk. The default was a month's imprisonment, which the defendant served, owing to his ignorance as to whether he could pay the fine or not. and no intimation was given to defendant that he could pay. When defendant was about to be discharged from prison ho was served with another summons lor being on the premise* of the City Hotel some hours previous to his arrest in the Empire Hotel. Sub-Inspector Black (who prosecuted) said the police always gave every prisoner a, chance of securing the fines by going whereever they were asked. In this case the defendant went from one hotel from where he was warned to another within ten minutesMr. Kettle: Was the Empire Hotel supplied with notice of the prohibition order? The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. kettle: Prohibition orders are supplied, and in numerous cases men como before the Court for drinking when they are prohibited, and no action is taken. If publicans are brought up and shown they cannot supply drink they would scon learn the Act.

Mr. Black: The reason is simply that the publicans may not know the* Act. .Mr. Keulo: It is for thn publicans to show thoy.do not know. The Act is very explicit in regard to publican-, supplying prohibited persons. .Mr. Black: In this case the hotel servant-; claim tin v did not know there was a prohibition order issued.

Mr. Kettle: Lot them come here and say that on oath. »

Mr. Black: I may also say that all instruction;? for prosecutions in these "cases have t« come from the inspector. Mr. fvett!-: '"hat. is all ritfht. Apparently tin, publico* shiuk the section of the Act dealing with prohibited persons is a dead letter.

The barmaid at the City Hotel said defendant did not enter the baron December

Mary Wallace, barmaid at the Empire. Hotel, said she saw the defendant in tho hotel about a month ago. Defendant un<\ another man were in the hotel, and were supplied with a pint of beer each. Constable Halliday went into the bar. ordered defendant out and told witness he was a prohibited person. Witness did not know defendant was prohibited. Mr. Kettle: What steps do you take for finding out whether people are prohibited or not

Witness: Wo generally get told by people coming to the hotel. Mr. Kettle: Does the licensee of the hotel take no trouble to let you know who the patrons are? Witness: Yes. he tells me them all.

Constable Halliday said ho saw defendant enter the City Hotel yard on December 13, but ho came out again. Defendant wont up to witness outside, and then walked to the Empire Hotel at the next corner. After speaking to another man for a while they went into the bar, where witness found drink in front of defendant. The defendant was arrested the same night by another constable for being on the tame premises and drunk.

.Mr. Kettle: Why wore not all the charges taken at the same time?

Mr. Black: Only the inspector give* instructions for prosecutions under the Licensing Ac*. Mr. Kettle: That is an exception to the general rub-. Mr. Black: "ft depends on what the offend is. All these reports go to the inspector."

The defendant was convicted and fined £1 on each charge.