LIQUOR ON SUNDAY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10924, 11 June 1921, Page 3

LIQUOR ON SUNDAY

IN OTAKI HOTEL LANDLORD NEGLIGENT, BUT NOT GUIf/TY. "SEEING THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.” (Special to "Times.”) . -At tho Otaki Magistrate’s Court, before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., several alleged breaches of the licensing lavs were dealt with. i SUNDAY TRADING ALLEGATIONS. J. D. Howell, licensee of the Central Hotel, was charged with, on Sunday, .May 22nd, selling liquor during hours in which' the sale of liquor was prohibited, and also with exposing liquor for sale at the same time. Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick conducted the case, and ,Mr Harder appeared for defendant. Thomas Shannon, formerly constable af Otaki, said that on the Sunday in question he visited the Central Hotel, and when he got into the passage heard voices in the bar. The door leading into the bar was closed. He tried it and someone opened it from the inside, where it was closed by a button. The licensee was inside with four men, Suhan, Rumble, Wadham, and Penny, the latter being a boarder. -In answer to a question the licensee said all were boarders. Rumble, on being ‘questioned, ad-! rnitted he had not stayed there on the previous #night. Suhan also said he had not stayed there, but had come there from. Levin, where he was a publican, and was telling Mr Howell about the booth at the Otaki races. Wortham and Rumble said they had just come with Mr Suhan in the car. There were four empty whisky glasses on the bar and mantelpiece. -Subsequently th% licenseo said, he was joking when he said they were boarders. - - Mr Harper :JDid not Mr Howell speak jocularly, saying "Can't you tell they are boarders from th*» colour of their eyes? Witness: If there was any joking 1 was writing and did not hear it. witness said there was no attempt at concealment of the glasses. Publicans did not usually leave glasses on the bar from the previous Saturday night. There was a car standing-outside the door. The slide into the billiardroom was not open. His attention' was attracted by hearing the voices in the Allan Satherley, police constable, eaid the licensee subsequently spoke to witness. and he said he had stopped Mr Suhan to ask about some beer pn“P s at the racecourse booth, which. Hr Suhan had held previously. He quentlv asked them In and the other men followed, which they tad no right to do. He also said he was speaking to the other men about assisting in tne booth on race day. . The magistrate agreed that tnere vino evidence of the “lie of liquor. THU DEPENDANT'S SIDE. Mr Harper addressed himself charge of exposing liquor. He outlined the circumstances. Suhan and a party from his house at Levin came down, to go to the beach. Howell saw go past, and as he wanted to consnlt Suhan about certain matters he waited for Jus return, and after speaking to him, took the party in to see the electric ughting and- invited them to 'have a drink. John David Howell, defendant, said that about 2 o’clock in , th ® “ question he was with his brother-in-law when he saw Mr Suhan. go by in his car on the way to the beach. - As he particularly, wanted to see Suhan he waited outside- the hotel until he returned, about an hour later. He hailed him and they discussed the loan of beer pumps for the booth ait the Otaki races. Mr Suhan then said he was interested in electric lighting and witness invited the party to come in and inspect nls installation. They came in with Mrs Suhan and inspected the whole of the machinery and fittings. "Witness then asked them into the bar to have a drink, and to see a chart of the installation that was on the wall of the bar. They did so. Twenty minutes after they had had the drink the constable came . in. Mrs Suhan had gone out just before them. "When first questioned witness made a jocular remark that the constable could see by tbe colour of tbeir eyes whether they were boarders or not. ‘Mr ,T. Suhan. of Levin, gave evidence corroborative of the nrevions witness. Cross-examined : Witness said be could not say whether any invitation 4o enter the hotel was held out to the men with him. So far as he knew it was addressed to witness and his wife. INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION. A. "Wadham, of Levin, said he and Rumble followed Mr and Mrs Suhan. They were not interested in thetelectric i light. ( " ’ " j Perhaps in a more lively spirit?” suggested the senior sergeant. Witness: “X don't drink spirits ?” He > had never - met Air Howell" before, but was introduced by Mr Suhan when the car pulled up. “Did Mr Howell invite you in?”—He invited us all in. “Did he give you a direct invitation?” —"No, but I considered I was included in the invitation after I had been introduced.” - . - ~ “Who paid for -the drinks ?’—Nobody, I only had a glass of etdnt and did not see anybody have any more. Peter Rumble, barman tor Mr Suhan at Levin, said there was a general invitation to the party. THE CHARGES DISMISSED. Tho magistrate said ft was quite right for the police to’ haTe this charge investigated. He believed the evidence for the defence as to the reason for the [ party being on the premises, and that, they" were there for bona fide purposes. It was essential in these cases to show that people went to the hoteL to get drink. The licensee appeared to have been negligent in serving the drink in the bar, and in future when he wished to entertain a brother publican should not do it there. The "case would be dismissed. Charges against Suhan_. "Wadham and Rumble of being on the premises during prohibited hours were also, dismissed.