TRADING AFTER HOURS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3714, 19 May 1925, Page 7

TRADING AFTER HOURS.

LICENSEE FINED £#. MAGISTRATE REPROVES WITNESSES. Some of the evidence given in a case which came before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the City Police Court on Wednes.„y was of a rather contradictory nature and the Magistrate’s comments must nave made two witnesses feel anything but comfortable. The case was one in which Matthew Henry Richarda was charged with, on April 10, keeping open for the sale of liquor the Farmers’ Arms Hotel, when such premises should have been closed. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Spencer Herbert Hayden, labourer, stated that shortly after 8 p.m. on April 10 he was accosted by Sergeant Gilligan. lie wag in possession of a- blue peter filled with beer which he had procured from the Farmers’ Arms Hotel. Ho had paid for the liquor ihe day before, and had left it with a boarder to hold for him. He returned for the liquor on Good Friday night, and it was given to him by a different boarder. To Mr Neill: lle took the blue peter from the barman before 6 p.m. on Thursday, and gave it to a boarder to mind. Sergeant Gilligan stated that about 8 p.m. on Good Friday he was in company with Constable Carroll. They were standing opposite tho Farmers’ Hotel in Princes street. Witness saw Hayden standing at the back gate of the hotel. After a few minutes a man came out of the front door of the hotel and handed Hayden a bag. Hayden walked off, and witness accosted him and asked what he had in the bag. He replied that it was private property. Witness took the bag, and opening it, found the blue peter. It had been freshly filled, as the froth was on the top. When asked how he had got the liquor at that hour, defendant had stated that he had been in the hotel that afternoon and had left the blue peter with the barman to be filled. Witness took Hayden back to the hotel and questioned the barman in his presence. The latter stated that Hayden had left the bottle that afternoon, and that he had filled it shortly after 6 p.in. and had left it in the bar. He then contradicted this statement and said it was Thursday afternoon that Hayden had left the bottle. Witness then interviewed tho licensee, who denied all knowledge of the affair. Constable Carroll corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Mr Neill contended that there was no evidence against the licensee, and that tho case should be dismissed. lie thought tho case was lamentably weak. The Magistrate held that there was a case to answer, and it was for the license© to prove that the liquor did not come from his stock. John Alfred Hardwick, barman at tho hotel, stated that he filled the blue peter on Thursday between 5 and 6 p.m. Hayden paid for it, and witness handed it over to him. Tho latter gave it to a boarder and asked him to look after it. To the Senior Sergeant: Tie emphatically denied that he filled the bottle on the Friday. Matthew Henry Richards,, licensee of tho Farmers’ Arms Hotel, deposed as to the interview with Sergeant Gilligan, and denied all knowledge of tho bottle of beer. The Magistrate reviewed the evidence ab length, and stated that Hayden had told two different stories. There was no evidence of the two individuals who were alleged to have taken the beer for Hayden. He would say that the evidence of Hayden did not call for much credence, and the evidence of the barman was not satisfactory. It was clear that the licensee had failed in his case, and ho would therefor© bo convicted. “It seems to me,” said the Magistrate, “that there is considerable looseness in tho conduct of the hotel, either on the part of the licensee or his servants. The licensee must accept the responsibility if he will not take care of his affairs. I will impose a fino of £lO and costs (7s).’’ The Magistrate refused to allow witnesses’ expenses, because he considered that tho evi* (/mco tendered was unsatisfactory.