ANTI-SHOUTING CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9784, 6 October 1917, Page 11

ANTI-SHOUTING CASE

i A PARTICULAR LICENSEE i ENDEAVOURS TO UPHOLD THE ! j LAW. Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., heard a i case yesterday in which Charles Fredcrick Priest, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, and his wife, Mary Priest, were each proceeded against for commitl ting a breach of the anti-shouting rel] gulations. Sub-Inspector Mcllvency | conducted the prosecution on hohall j of the police, and 'Mr T. M. Wilford I appeared for both defendants. Constable Jame s Scarry said he was ’ on special duty on the evening of September Bth, and visited the Terminus j Hotel with Constable Brown. The licensee was behind the bar. It was 9.23 o’clock, and he saw the licensee ■ serve a civilian and a soldier with medium shandies. Witness saw the civilian tender a shilling in payment of the drinks. He did not see any change given. It was half-timo_ at the theatre, and it was the busy time for. the hotel attendants. At 9.25 ’ witness saw Mr Priest servo two. mill- . tary officers in uniform each with a brandy, for which one of then' paid. I Witness wa s about twelve feet away ■ at the time, and had an uninterrupted 1 view. Mr and Mrs Priest were in . the same bar, and while he was there both the defendants were very busy serving customers.' ' ■ MIXED HIS DRINKS. To Mr Wilford: Had a medium shandy a.t the Masonic, a claret and lemonade at: the Alhambra, a. shandy at the Albert, and- a beer at the Terminus. ' Counsel: "How did you stand the mixture?” —"Oh, pretty well.” "Are you a heavy drinker?” —“I can take a drink.” "What do you drink usually?”— "Oh 1 Shandies." "Can you mix your drinks and get homo all, right?”—“Yes.” Further questioned by counsel, witness ' admitted' that there wore three rows of tumblers between him and the licensee when ho saw the civilian pay for the drink. His view was uninterrupted. Counsel; "Will you take your oath that there was.not also a sixpence Maced on the counter?’.’ —“I will take my oath that T did not see it” "That is not .an answer to ray question.”—"Well, I never saw a six- , pence.” , , .■. “The bar is only a small one?” — “Yes.” "How big is it?”—“I don’t know the measurements, but I do know that only six men could stand at the bar.” |' “How many persons were in the bar?”—“About eight or ten.” ; '"ls it not notorious' that both Mr and Mrs Priest will not allow one person to pay for another’s drink at this hotel?”—"I don’t know.” SHOUTING PROHIBITED. ’ “Did not Mrs Priest say to you that each man must pay for his own drink?”—"Yes, but not only to mo. 1 heard her say the same, to others.”Constable Brown gave corrobatiro evidence respecting the sale of-drinks. To the Sub-Inspector; On the following Monday, in company with Sergeant Scott, he visited the hotel. The sergeant told Priest that the police recognised-him as the person who served a civilian ' and ' a soldier with drink on Saturday night. Priest replied that he was very particular. On the following day Mrs Priest was seen by Sergeant Scott, Constable _ Scarry, ■ and himself. When Mrs Priest was ; told of the charge she replied, “1 am condent I did not do it.” To Mr Wilford: There were no glasses on the counter to obstruct his - view. Heard Mrs Priest say on more than one occasion to customers, “Ton J can’t shout here; every man in this hotel pays for his own drink.” A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. ■For the defence, Mr Wilford said that he had-known Mr and Mrs Priest since they were children. The defendants had been engaged in the conduct of hotels for the past ten years, and the present. was the first occasion either of them, had been concerned with a prosecution, or had they even been before a court for a breach ol licensing or any other Act. The licensee claimed that his house was the strictest in Wellington m respect to the observance, of the. anti-shouting regulation, and was known as such. He asked the Bench to note that the police, who were unknown to the defendants, had each heard Mrs Priest eay a number of times that she would not allow any man to shout for another. It was unique, and on© would have thought that -the constables 1 would have reported the circumstances. Charles Frederick Priest stated that tie had always observed the licensing laws, and had suffered to a large extent by refusing to break them. Ho was positive that shouting did not take place in his house. He could not identify any particular sale. Mrs Priest also denied allowing any person to shout. Sergeant James S. Willcox said that the defendant conducted his hotel m an, able manner, and was always eager to carry out any suggestions made by the police. HONEST STATEMENTS. The magistrate said that he was satisfied that the breaches complained of had taken place. The defendants could not remember the particular circumstances in connection with the sale. Tho police, who were on special duty, , were only concerned with these circumstances, therefore their evidence i as to what happened was more reliable. At tho same time he desired to say ] that the defendants, in his ■ opinion, had stated in the witness hox what they honestly believed to be true, but were too busy on the night of September Bth to know what happened. I Mr Wilford asked that in the cir- I . cumstances Mr and Mrs Priest should I not have a conviction recorded against j them. His Worship said he would not treat ) | the case as trivial. Priest would be ! fined £5, and ordered to pay costs. Airs I Priest would be convicted and dis- j i charged. - . .