EVASION OF LAW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22066, 23 September 1933, Page 12

EVASION OF LAW

“BOOKING IN” AT HOTEL MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED (Pee United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, September 22. ** This seems to be just a new device for evading the provisions of the Licensing Act,” said Mr W. R. M'Kcan, S.M., in the Police Court to-day, when four men, who were charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises after hours and whose homes were in the district, brought evidence to show that they had “booked in” as lodgers and had slept at the hotel after the police raid. In connection with the same incident Charles Edward Adams, former licensee of the Empire Hotel, was charged with keeping open the premises for the sale of liquor after hours, exposing liquor for sale after hours, and selling liquor after hours. Adams was represented by Mr Henry and the other four defendants by Mr Aekins. Pleas of not guilty to all the charges were entered. Detective Sergeant O’Sullivan said that about 9.20 p.m. on July 21 Sergeant Geraghty and two constables visited the Empire Hotel and found the four men in the bar. There were glasses of ale in front of them. They stated that they had been entered in the books as lodgers, but all lived within 15 minutes’ walk of the hotel and none had luggage or night attire. Two later left for the home of one of them where they were interviewed by the police and stated that they had gone to get their pyjamas. They were in their working clothes when seen in the bar. It would appear that it was a practice to “ book in ” as lodgers merely to evade the Licensing Act. He understood, however, that they had subsequently slept in the hotel. , Mr Aekins claimed that as the defendants had been entered in the books as lodgers and had slept at the hotel they had fulfilled the definition of lodgers under the Act. All the men were single and there was surely nothing illegal in spending the night at the hotel if they so desired.

The four men gave evidence of having paid 5s for bed and breakfast, and advanced reasons for having decided to spend the night in the hotel. “ I am completely dissatisfied with this evidence,” said the magistrate, in fining each defendant £2, with costs. “ I have no power to inflict a higher penalty, but if people come’ here and tell untruths they can expect the maximum penalty in every case. They deserve no consideration.” Mr Henry, for Adams, said the facts in the case were admitted, but he claimed that Adams honestly believed that the men had come as bona fide lodgers. “ I cannot believe that Adams really thought the other defendants were going to spend the night as bona fide guests,” said the magistrate, in imposing a fine of £5, with costs, on the first charge. The other charges were withdrawn.