CALLED AGAIN

NZ Truth, Issue 1147, 24 November 1927, Page 5

CALLED AGAIN

Echoes

Absentee

Police Drop In On

Licensee

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Hastings Rep.) Notoriety may be said to have come the way of Donald Hugh McLeod, licensee of the Hastings Hotel and Athol Griffiths, a wellknown jockey, when they were fined for an "after hours" affair last October. THE amount of inference thrown about, then, was sufficient to supply the sauce piquant to the public's palate for curiosity. But now, come other charges, calculated to reveal interesting facts. When McLeod was originally charged with selling liquor after hours and also with allowing his" premises to be open for the sale of liquor after the hour of closing, the case was brought on the information bf Constable O'Neill, and it. will be remembered that during the hearing, the licensee made certain allegations against the constable.

Amongst other things he alleged that Constable O'Neill owed him money for liquor supplied, threatened to get him out of the hotel m a couple of months, and generally made it a case of victimization. These allegations, of course, were strongly denied by ., the constable. McLeod was fined £7/10/---and costs, and Athol Griffiths, a wellknown jockey was fined £2 and costs for being found on the hotel premises after hours. At this, the public was left wondering whether anything more would be heard of the business, especially as McLeod applied for and was granted security for appeal, but it was not long before both McLeod and Griffiths had been charged again. This time it was a relieving constable from Napier who laid the information and Constable O'Neil was not m the picture. The case was set down for hearing at last week's sitting of the Magistrate's Court, and when the court opened it was evident that public curiosity had awakened. Unfortunately the case had to be adjourned. The charges against Donald Hugh McLeod were that on November 2, he opened his hotel for the sale of liquor at a time when they were required to be closed; and that he sold liquor to Athol Griffiths when he was m a state of Intoxication. There was also a charge against Griffiths of being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, but the summons m this case, it was said, had not been served. When the case was called. Lawyer Rogers who appeared for McLeod asked for an adjournment for a week on the grounds that one of his essential witnesses was not present.

Inspector Cummings: I would like to know why he is not here. Lawyer Rogers: I understand he is away from Hastings, but will be back shortly. He is a jockey and has to go away on occasions. The Inspector: The licensee knew that this case was coming on to-day, and yet he allowed this witness to go away after the summons was served. Now there is an application m for the transfer of the license of the hotel, and the whole thing looks very suspiolous. I don't object to an adjournment for a week provided there is no further adjournment. The missing witness is a well-known jockey and it is suggested that he went to Christchurch on Wednesday. By then the races were half over, and it is just a question whether he went there at all. He is supposed now to be m the employ o{ the licensee; but it is strange that the licensee does not know. where he is. Even his parents don',t know. Magistrate A. M. Mowlem: It is no use beating about the bush. I am wondering whether I ought to say what is m my r.iind. It is plain that I, m common with other magistrates, don't like adjournments m licensing cases, and anyone who has had anything to do with licensing cases will know the reason why. You are prepared to go on, Inspector? The Inspector: Yes. The Magistrate: And you are not, Mr. Rogers? Lawyer Rogers: No. This man is an essential witness. He will say that he never got the liquor which the police say he had. His Worship: So you have seen him? Lawyer Rogers: No. His Worship: Well, how do you know what he will say? Lawyer Rogers: Well, I understand that he is the man the police were supposed to have found the liquor on. His Worship: Is /the application for a new license m yet? The Inspector: Yob; that's what we're suspicious of. His Worship: I understand the application for a certificate of fitness was only lodged this morning. Fitness The Inspector: Well, it* is m the hands of the police, and it has been common knowledge this week that the application was to be lodged. His Worship: This is the same licensee I dealt with a few weeks back, is it? Lawyer Rogers: Yes, but not the same facts. / His Worship: Of course not. Not the same time. Not the same men concerned, either; but it is the same licensee. The Inspector: And one of the same men, your worship. The missing witness is the man Griffiths who was before you m the other case., .-.-.. His Worship: Oh, is that so? The further we go into it, the more involved it becomes. All the more reason,. I should say, why there should not be any adjournment. After further considering the matter, however,. the. magistrate agreed to make the adjournment on the understanding that the case would definitely j[o en «,t tha nest sitting of the court.