DUNEDIN DOINGS

NZ Truth, Issue 692, 21 September 1918, Page 6

DUNEDIN DOINGS

Anti-Shoutißg Prosecution Tramwaymen and Their Troublet. j (From. "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) When John Corston asked a young pal, Reginald Robert Kellan, to go into the European Hotel and wet his whistle one Saturday afternoon last month, he . ' laid the foundation for a series of prosecutions which occupied the attention Of Magistrate Bartholomew for some time last Wednesday. . These two culprits were fined £5 each; but the most serious consequences were those - to the barman who served them, and who was fined £15, with costs. The latter, however, ,on account of A GOOD, CLEAN RECORD, escaped the penalty of suspension frota 'his • occupation. . The first charges heard /were those against Kellan and Corston. It appeared that the latter Invited the young fellow (who is only 17 years of age, but looks considerably older) into John Morrison's pubbery, and there treated him to' 1 a drink. The latter returned the compliment. It was at this juncture that Sergeant Murray put m an unwelcome appearance, and question- '• ed Kellan as to his age, with the result that not only the fact of his being, under 21 years of age was elicited, but also the fact that offences against the antirshouting law had been committed. The elder defendant pleaded that he did not know for pertain that Kellan , was under age, but admitted the shoyt- '■ ing. Kellan (who had for some time, been engaged on a troopship) also admitted having shouted. A fine of £5 In each case was inflicted. John Reid, the barman m the case, _ (for whom Lawyer Hanloh appeared), Was next charged with serving a youth apparently under the age. of 21 years. Sub-Inspector Mathieson candidly admitted- that the young . fellow looked "close on 21" years. The Magistrate thought "he! looked quite 21" and disjnlssed the information. Jack Reid had to answer s. further charge ln connection with the treating. Lawyer Hanlon admitted 'carelessness, l?ut said that Just at the time the Offence was committed, /the barmen were relieving one another, and the defendant was "caught : on the hop." 'Counsel admitted that barmen should certainly be more careful, though as a matter /of fact the public broke the .law frequently by . subterfuge, if not openly. He submitted that this was not a case where the defendant should be deprived of his means of livelihood. The Magistrate said that it would be difficult for the public to carry on treating if bar attendants were vigilant. There was very little excuse m this . case, as there were very few m the "bar at the time. In view of the defendant's good record, he (His Worship) would -waive the .provisions regarding disqualification, this being i possible under the amended Act. At the same time it was necessary that, the fine, should be fairly substantial, bo as to warn others. Defendant would fbe fined £15, with costs, 7s. ' A second information against the defendant was withdrawn,' John Morrison, the licensee bf the .European "pubbery" (for whom Lawyer Jack Lang appeared) was then charged with ' -y SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO A YOUTH apparently under 21. In view of the .decision m the former case the police offered no evidence m this one, and ihe information was dismissed. On the charge of permitting treating, the game defendant pleaded not guilty. . The Sub-Inßpector said that full enquiries had been made, and the police were satisfied that the defendant did not connive' at or acquiesce m the treating. He, therefore, asked permission to withdraw this charge. Permission was granted.