ANTI-SHOUTING CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16873, 11 June 1918, Page 7

ANTI-SHOUTING CHARGES.

SEVERAL MEN CONVICTED.

OFFENCES AT TWO HOTELS.

Several charges relating to breaches of ! the anti-shouting regulations were dealt I with by Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., at the , Police Court yesterday. Donald Hooper ! (Mr. Lowrie), licensee of the Queen's ' Ferry Hotel, and John Farrar (Mr. ! Singer), barman, were charged with per- ! nutting shouting. The licensee r.nd the j barman pleaded not guilty, but alter the ! statement of the police, Mr. Singer, on ; behalf of the barman, admitted the facts, j Acting-Sub-Inspector MeNamara said I that on .May 18 two constables heard a man ! call for two mugs of beer, winch were supplied to, and paid for by, him. The licensee I was not present. The only suspicious fea- i ture against him was "that while the ' police were upstairs the bar attendants changed places. Mr. Singer said this was explained by the feet tnat at meal times the staff was I learranged.

in regard to the case against the licensee, Mr. Lowrie said he relied on I subsection 7 of the regulations for his defence. The licensee hud given instructions tii his staff not to permit shouting, ' and had posted notices about the hotel , There was no suggestion that ho know, j mgly permitted shouting, i On behalf of the barman, Mr. Singer' said that in rush times a man frequently ; ordered two drinks at the one time. fo"r ; himself. When the man ordered tno two : mugs of beer Farrar supposed that he was ' following this custom. The bar was very I full at the time, and the barman could , hardly tell what was happening. | The information against the licensee was ' dismissed. Farrar was convicted and fined £5, the. magistiate formally ordering that . the 12 months' employment disqualifies- j turn, as provided by the Act, be not put into operation. | Four men—William J. Oillaul, barman ' at the Waitemata Hotel, Robert Luke, Arthur Glover, and John Reed—pleaded not guilty to breaches of regulations on . May 17 at the Waitemata Hotel. j The acting-sub-inspector said that Luke purchased two half-pints of beer for Reed and Glover, and called for whisky for himself. He had tendered Is, and" was i asked for and paid another M. I For the defence, Gillam said that Luke I paid 9d for the whisky for himself, but ■■ before recording the sale on the, cash ' register he served two other men with beer. Luke did not pay for the liquor for the two men as far as Gillam could rerol- I lect.

The magistrate said the case hinged on whether Luke put down a6d or Is. The police evidence was quite definite, however, and must be accepted. He did not want the impression to go abroad that a defendant would he more severely dealt with if his evidence was not as strong as that put forward by the police. He did not. want to discourage any person from defending himself. lifllam'was fined £5 and his disqualification from following his employment as a barman was fixed at one month. The magistrate said Luke appeared to have been under the influence of liquor at the time, and he, fined Luke Reed, and Clover £2 each.