LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19027, 26 May 1925, Page 12

LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

AFFRAY AT HAMILTON. A SERIES OF CHARGES. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Monday. Five cases arising out of tho samo set of circumstances, although under different statutes, came beforo Mr. 11. A. Young, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court to-day, when three men, Owen Lewis and Leslie J. McPiko (Mr. Strang), and Alfred A. Terry (Mr. Lucas), wore charged with disorderly behaviour and assault respectively, and the licensee of tho Commercial Hotel, Hamilton, George Gillett, and his porter and barman, Len Hyde, wero charged with supplying liquor after hours. Mr. Northcroft appeared for the two last defendants.

Tho charges of assault and disorderly behaviour wore dealt with first. SeniorSergeant Matthew said that the charges aroso out of an affray between Lewis, McPiko and Terry in an alleyway off Alexandra Street, at about 10.30 p.m. 'on April 9. Tho men obtained liquor at the Commercial Hotel and became qtiarrellomo.

Constable Lloyd gave evidence as to finding men arguing, _ and Terry apparently wanting to ' fight. Witness told them to go away or there would be trouble. They went, but later witness found tho men in Collingwood Street, whetc McPike had struck Terry a blow. Witness again separated them, but ft short time later he returned found that Lewis had knocked out Terry, who was lying in the road. A constable read statements made by Lewis and McPike, in which they said that Terry was the aggressor, and had deliberately forced tho light upon them. After hearing further evidence arid counsels' opinions the magistrate held that Lewis and McPike had been the aggressors. 110 convicted them ana ordered each to pay £7 2s 3d costs. Ihe charge against Terry was dismissed. In outlining tho charges against Gillett and Hyde, tho senior-sergeant said that on the night in question the bar of tho hotel was open, and at least two parties went in and apparently experienced no difficulty in obtaining drinks. Defendant Gillett, who was in Auckland at the time had a capable employee in charge of the hotel, and shehad evidently given the keys to the porter with instructions to serve the boarders. He had apparently made no distinction between boarders and others. Evidence was given by Ldward Amos that although not a boarder he had obtained liquor without difficulty, bein 0 served bv Hyde. Corroborative evidence was given by the accused in tho previous charco and several others. , Lily White, clerk at tho hotel, said she had 'been in charge during kiUctts absence, and had handed the keys of the bar to Hydo for the purpose of serving boarders only. ... The magistrate held that a prima facie case had been established, and Mr. Whcroft entered a plea of 'not guilty. Ho said tho hotel had been very busy on the nieht in question, and although the bainian had done his best to serve only boarders, ho had apparently trusted thenword too much, fho hotel was an ex-cellently-run establishment. He contended "that as Mr. Gillett was away at tho time and had left a responsible person in charge, the offence could not bo considered very grave. The magistrate, in convicting UUlett, remarked that although he was away from the hotel on business in connection with the running of tho hotel, he was technically responsible for the action of his servants. There was no suggestion of carelessness in tho selection ol those he left in charge, or that he had shown any lack of supervision in tlm management of the hotel. Both defendants were convicted and each was ordered 3 to pay £6 9s costs.