CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22204, 6 March 1934, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT

■ : . Monpat; Mabch 6. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) , DRUNKENNESS. Stephen Joseph Cunningham 1 was lined 12s 6d, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment,, on a charge of drunkenness. John Davidson, a statutory first offender, was convicted and discharged. 'Michael Murphy, who had previously been convicted within the past six months, was lined 20s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment on a charge of drunkenness, and was convicted and discharged on a charge of procuring liquor whilst prohibited. A first offender for drunkenness was fined 10s and another first offender was lined 20s, Jefault being fixed at 24 hours’ imprisonment in each case. MAINTENANCE. John James Walsh was charged with the disobedience of a maintenance order, the arrears amounting to £lB, He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in the Wellington prison, to be released on the payment of £lB. LICENSING BREACHES. John Joseph Brennan, the licensee of the Wharf Hotel, was charged with exposing liquor for sale and with selling liquor after hours.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that at 8.20 p.m. on March 24 the police went to the defendant’s hotel and found eight or ten men in a back room consuming liquor and another eight or ten men in the bar itself; .The licensee himself was in the bar dispensing the liquor, ; and when the police arrived he told the men to get out, with the result that there Was a scramble and all but' five The man had apparently set himself out to commit these offences as he had previously been warned when fie appeared before the court on .November and June of last year. A serious aspect of the case was that a , man had been found in a drunken condition in a back room, and ...» man who .was prohibited and who was also on probation was drinking in the bar. In all it was one of the worst cases with, which he had come in touch!—Mr L. R. Simpson, who represented the defendant, said that his client admitted the statement as put before the court, with the exception of the number of men found in the hotel. Actually the number of men in the bar parlour had been four, a fifth man having gone out when the police arrived. However, the number of men found on the premises was immaterial, as the offence would have been just as serious if there had been 10 or 20 men there. With reference to the man who had been found in a drunken condition in a back room, he had not been served with, liquor by the licensee, while the man who was on probation was not known to the defendant. His client strenuously denied that he had been indulging in constant afterhour trading or that he had set himself out to commit the offence. His bar takings and beer accounts over the past two months were practically the same ns those during the earlier portion of his tenancy of the hotel. His takings on the day the offence was committed had been very poor and he had foolishly allowed a number of men to come into the bar after the hotel had closed. He had not been indulging in indiscriminate after-hour trading—The magistrate said that the court could not look on the case as trivial. The licensee had been serving in the bar himself, and had previously been warned. The case showed that a serious breach of the licensing laws had been committed and in view of the character of the police report, which showed that the licensee’s conduct had not been satisfactory, he would be fined £5, with costs (3s), and his license would be endorsed, on the charge of selling liquor after hours. The of exposing liquor for sale would be withdrawn.