Police Disturb a Little Party

NZ Truth, Issue 1030, 22 August 1925, Page 8

Police Disturb a Little Party

It- is alleged that when the Hamilton police paid a surprise visit to the Waikato Hotel on Easter night they came across a nice little "school" of tipplers m the private bbarr r which was lit up. Drinks had been served out, and the barman was m the office behind the counter. ■ ,

Only one of these men happened to be a boarder, so the police promptly took the names of those present, and subsequently seven of them were charged with being unlawfully on premises after hours, while the barman, William Percy, who was officiating at the time, waa charged on two counts with unlawfully supplying liquor. The licensee of T the hotel at that time, John McKenzie, since retired, was also charged with supplying liquor after hours, with supplying an Intoxicated person, and with opening his premises after hours. The men who, were charged with being illegally on promises gave a variety of excuses for their presence there. One had called to see a traveller who was not there; another looked m to pick up a parcel of motor parts; a third went to see about conveying a certain gentleman to Te Aroha on the following mprning. Not one of them, of course, went there to drink, and the majority explained their actual presence m . the bar by declaring that they were the guests of the only one

among them who was a boarder. It transpired, however, that the boarder had only that afternoon arrived from Te Kuiti and that he ■ was a stranger to the majority of them. According to some of them, they, tike sheep, just followed him m when he suggested "a spot." He seems to have been a very affable man with a talent for sudden friendship. . The Magistrate was not convinced, and imposed fines averaging £2 and costs. In delivering: reserved judgment m the case of McKenzie, Magistrate Young said that, when the raid was made, McKenzie himself happened to be away, and therefore he did not actually commit the offences with which he was charged. Although no moral blame was attachable to defendant, however, there was prima facie evidence that Percy had authority to sell the liquor and to open the premises. Defendant would, therefore, be convicted. He was ordered to pay the coSsts of the prosecution, £3 8s 2d. Percy was fined £10 and costs on one charge; the other was dismissed.