LICENSING PROSECUTION AT PALMERSTON.

Otago Witness, Issue 2528, 27 August 1902, Page 50

LICENSING PROSECUTION AT PALMERSTON.

THE DEFENDANT PLEADS "GUILTY." j

A ca*e which had excited a good deal of local interest was heard a.t Palmerston Magistrate's Court before Major Keddell, S.M., oj Wednesday, when DavTU Jones, licensee of the Palmer- ' sto.i Hotel, Pa'merston, was charged, on the information of Constable W. Hilliard, with having on August 8 unlawfully allowed hquor, within the meaning of the act, to be consumed on his licensed premises at a time when such premises were directed by law to be closed, inspector O'Brien appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Findlay for the defendant. Mt Findlay said Jiis client would plead "GuiHy" lo the charge. A further information against the same defendant charged him wth having allowed Charles Bartholomew and Thomas Watson to play a game with dice, known as "Yankee giab,"' upon his licensed premises, on August 8, at such a time when the premises were required by law to be clo a ed. Tho Magistrate said ho would amend the infornMtion by striking out the words "wth dice, known as 'Yankee grab,'" the description of the game l.ot bsing necessary, as the act made it an offence to play any game in an hotel at such time when the premises were required to be closid. li.-rvctor O'Brmn said he had no objection. Subj'ct to his Worship's approval, he (the insp.ctoi) thought the woidi ' did play a game ' were sufficient. Inspector O'Brien intimated hia intention to proceed with the charge. Mi t'indlr.y contended that the second chargtshoukl be withdrawn. Both informations were lad under section 155 of " The Licensing Act. 1881, and the matters in respect to which the mfoiniutioDd were made arose out of the same set of facts. If «i penalty were imposed and a lumiilion endorsed in respect to one information the ends of justice would be amply met. The practice in those ia"es where the police could lay two inforuiHtinns in respect to what was really only cno offence, and thp defendnnt p'cat'niig "Gui'ty' 1 to one, was for the police to withdraw the other, because the bench could inflict on the one charge what would be a. sufficient penalty to cover both informations, lie would therefoie ask his Worship to treat both informations as one, or that, upon his client's pleading " Guilty " to the one, the other should be withdrawn

Inspector O'Brien: You plead "Guilty' 1 on th". firat count only?

Mr Knidliij 1 would like nome indication of his Woiuhip's opinion on the point. The pohee <lo not usually press foi a heavy penalty on the second diargp. The Magistrate thought it woulcl be perfectly legal, and at the discretion oi the police officer, to withdraw the second information upon the defendant pleading "Guilty"' to the first. The informations were laid under the same section »f the act against the same individual, in respect of the same hotel and »t the same tune. The two might be said to be concurrent. Of course, it might be said that liquor being supplied to several pei°ons after hours would constitute a separate offence in ree-pect to each person, but informations were never laid in that way. It had been held that such a course would be unnecessary prosecution, and that such offences should be deemed one offence — unlawfully selling liquor. So that he considered the two charges could be brought under the one prosecution, both being lad under the same section.

Inspector O'Brien said that some days previously Mr Findlay had mads the same proposal to him tha f he maclp now— that the defendant should plead " Guilty " to one charge, and that tiie other shou'd be withdrawn, lie (In%peetoi O'Bi.ftn) had pointed out that these weie two very different offence", and he proposed to proceed with both. That course he was inclined to nur^ue. The evidence disclosed two very diffeiont c! ufences — different altogether j First of all there was a consumption of liquor. I That prob.ibly oanrred more than once during the ni<,'iit, as n»mir'g harl been continued till i somewhere about 4 a.m. If there was evidence. J of liquoi having been consumed at 12. 1, 2, 3", | and 4 o'clock he would ne\er think of making five separate iii formation" as to these — one would be fciiffie'ent But, then, a totuPy different statp of things was chse'r^rd. Ill' evidence was that dice had been in u°e. and. th.nt bfi v iB r «o, he 'iibimtted the offerirs wi>r» of a very different <-har<u t^r. H' wo.vii not f< ' 1 justified, uucliT tlx < m inn-it.iii( es, in tieatmj.' the offpnrcs as one or m uiilulrcivvin^ tlif si'ici '1 ! information. H<> v.-n-f ],jrepaiecl to go on uuh I the second infoimation |

" of the police in this case was that of justice tempered with mercy. It seemed *hat the ends of justice could be met "by the one conviction. The question was whether on the one charge the magistrate could impose such a punishment as would meet both charges. He (Mr Findlay) submitted he could do so. Another prosecution was needless. The defence bad freely and openly gone to the police and intimated his intention of plead "Guilty" to one charge, giving the option of either, and asked withdrawal of the other. The two informations were under one sectior —the one provided machinery for the other. If the police insisted on going on with the charge the court would be justified in dismissing the second case. The Magistrate said he hardly thought that, but he thought that the offences talcing plac& at or.c and the same time they could be treatect as one charge. There was no doubt it would be absurd to suppose that persons sitting up in a pubhehouse to aU hours, gaming, woulcl do to without drinking. Playing any game at all at such time when licenced premises were directed to be closed was an oliemc. The whole qifestion was tho justice of the matter. He thought the one charge being an integral part of the other, the real offence was provided for. It was. of course, a time when the license question was veiy much on the tapis, and both offences were of a seiicus kind. It would not be for the police to withdraw, or sr.y whau should be eTone; that wns -for him (the magistrate) to consider, and tho course would, in Vhis case, be to recommend certain act-ion. He would like to hear something about the ) conduct o£ the house. j Constable Hilhard, in reply to the inspector, I said the licensee had not been long .in Palmeraton, fl-nd had, he believed, only recently commerced hotelkeeuing. From complaint* received, he (the constable) had on several occasions warned the licensee in regard to infrinpaments of the Licensing Act, sxich as people being r.i the hotel on Sundays and after To Mr Findlay Witness had not observed any infringement.-- of the law himself, but had received stveial complaints, and had warned the licensee anon the strength of these. There were no previous convictions against the defei dant as f?r as witness knew. D?ifndant had only recently commenced hotelkeeping. Tho Magistrate said he would treat the two information* as one. He felt nistified in taking that course. Defendant would be fined £o and co«iU (15$) on the fir.it ii.foimation before him. (the maei'traM. 'ln> cosvetiou to be endorsed on ♦»- r