THE LICENSING ACT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1716, 18 January 1905, Page 76 (Supplement)

THE LICENSING ACT.

AN INVITED GUEST. A CONVICTION RECORDED. PALMERSTON, Monday. Michael Power, a labourer, pleaded not guilty at the Magistrate’s Court today to a charge of having been found on licensed premises—to wit, the Masonic Hotel —during prohibited hours—i.e., between 11 p.m. on December 31st and 6 a.m. on January 2nd—he being neither an inmate, boarder, or servant of the said hotel. Accused, in his evidence, said Mr Mulrooney, the licensee, was an old friend of his, and he regarded the hotel somewhat as a home. Mr Mulrooney had invited him to spend New Year’s Day at the hotel. Witness arrived during the afternoon, and .stayed for tea. A little while after he had concluded his meal he went outside and loitered about on the footpath. While he was standing there he saw a constable enter the hotel. A few minutes afterwards he re-entered the hotel, with the intention of discovering if there were any letters for him, never dreaming that it might be deemed that lie was infringing the Licensing Act in doing so. Under cross-examination, witness stated that it took him- three-quarters of an hour to walk from Mulrooney’s hotel to the camp where he worked. He would not say that the camp was three miles from the hotel, nor would he say that it was not three miles. R. Mulrooney, the licensee of the Masonic Hotel, said that defendant was his invited guest both, for Christmas and the New Year. He was of opinion that the camp was three miles from the hotel. The Stipendiary Magistrate: Would that make any difference ? Witness: Not exactly. The Stipendiary Magistrate: I mean, if he did not live three miles away, would you still have asked him? Witness: I would. The Stipendiary Magistrate: Did you invite him for the day ? Witness: I did, but he only came for tea. Cross-examined by Sergeant Stagpoole, witness admitted that he was not at the table when defendant was having his tea. When defendant was at tea witness was out. There was no entry in the hooks charging Power for board or anything else of that nature. Constable De Loree stated that while he was talking to Mr Mulrooney in tlie hotel hall on the evening of January Ist the accused entered the house behind three other men. When the accused saw witness he quickened his pace, and went in the direction of the letter-rack. Witness heard accused say that he knew lie' was running a risk, but he must get his letters. Cross-examined by accused, the constable stated that he had not seen him outside the hotel. A witness testified that when the constable called accused was standing right in front of the door. The Stipendiary Magistrate was satisfied that defendant had not shown that he had a right to be on the premises during unlicensed hours. He had evidently felt that when he went in for liis letters he was 1 able. Another noticeable point was that the defendant had not tendered the constable the same explanation which he had given to the court. He would be convicted and fined 10s. with 7s costs.