ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3864, 3 April 1928, Page 10

ON LICENSED PREMISES.

CONSTABLE BREAKS THE LAW. FINE OF £2 IMPOSED. AUCKLAND, March 28. Two Hamilton constables, Arnold Sydney Wade and Arthur Cyril Shilton, were charged at the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court tq-day • before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., with having been in the Commercial Hotel after hours on March 1. Mr Noe] Johnson appeared for the defendants. Senior Sergeant Sweeney said that on the evening of March 1, just after 6 o’clock, Wad e and Shilton met Mr E. H Northcroft, a solicitor of Auckland, near the post office. Wade knew Northcroft well and introduced Shilton. The three of them walked as far as the Commercial Hotel, whee Northcroft was staying. They entered the hotel and went upstairs to the sitting room, where Northcroft ordered three drinks. The Senior Sergeant said it was for the magistrate to determine whether the constables were legitimate guests, of Mr Northcroft, who was a boarder

Peter Ford, barman in the hotel, said he served the three men with drinks, which wer e paid for by Mr Northcroft. In answer to Mr Johnson, witness said that Mr Northcroft had been staying in the hotel for several days. The sitting room where the drinks were served was a private one, usually used bv Mr North croft when he was in Hamilton. Constable Carseldine said he saw the two constables enter the Commercial Hotel a few minutes after 6 o’clock. Senior Sergeant Sweeney said that in ro P J to a mernoran <inm on the subject, Made wrote admitting that he was on the premises with Mr Northcroft after 6 p.m. He was, he stated, a friend of Mr Northcroft. They had not seen each other -for two rears. He (Wade) had Private business to discuss with him they walked along the street and Northcroft invited him and Constable Shilton inside. While they were in the private ‘jffting room, Mr Northcroft suggested a h tie refreshment, which, out of courtesy, they accepted. Cross-examined by Mr Johnson witness said he did not consider there was anything out of order in prosecuting the two constab.es on information obtained from Wade in. this way. Johnson: Why did you not extend the courtesy to Mr Northcroft of asking him for an explanation ?_There was no need for that. Is not th e true reason that vou wanted to get Mr Northeroft, a man of the highest standing in the community, to make an explanation from the witness box ’ N o. < Mr Johnson submitted that there was no case to answer There was ample evidence to show that a legitimate boarder at an hotel could provide his guests with liquor in hi s own private room after hours it was the invariable practice of the police in prosecutions such as this to make inquiries from all possible sources. In- this case that practice had been deliberately disregarded in order that Mr Northcroft would be forced to give his explanation in court. " Senior Sergeant Sweeney: W P use our own discretion in matted of this sort. We saw no call to consult Mr Northcroft.

Mr Johnson: The inquiries were conducted in such tr way as to compel Mr Northcroft to come before the court and

explain why these two constables were iff the hotel with him. Mr Northeroft was a bona fide boarder, and the constables . guests - As a matter of fact, ade desired to discuss a private matter with Mr Northcroft, and approached him with this object. Mr Northeroft said: “ Oh, come into my private sitting room at the Commercial, and we will talk it over.” As they entered Wade remarked upon the hotel being closed. Mr Northcroft said: “ Oh, that does not matter. You are my guests.” While they were discussing VVades business Mr Northcroft, acting the perfect host, asked them if they would care for a drink. Three beers were ordered, which were paid for by Mr Northcroft. Wade gave evidence bcaing out the statement of his counsel. Erima H. Northcroft said be had been staying in the Commercial Hotel for several days, and was making his way along Victoria street somewhere about G p.m. when he was accosted by Wade, whom he had known for some years. After an exchange of greetings Wade said he had a private matter to discuss. He (witness) said: “ You had better come along to the hotel, and we can talk it over in my private sitting room.” As they entered the hotel one of the constables remarked that the premises were closed, whereupon witness said: “ Oh, well, I am a boarder, and you will be my guest. They went into witness’s private sitting room, where Wade asked his advice regarding a will. During the conversation witness asked the ‘wo constables to have a drink, and each ordered a glass of beer, for which Le (witness) paid. It was a mattci of indifference to him whether the time was before or after 6. He was a lodger, and had the right to offer his guests a drink in a private room. His Worship, speaking with regard to Wade, said he did not think it would have been sufficient excuse had he gone into the hotel merely on Northcroft’s invitation to enter. He desired, however, to discuss a private matter with him. His statement was borne out by Mr Northeroft. He (the Magistrate) accepted this explanation, and the defendant therefore was not on premises in contravention of the Act. The case against Wade therefore would be dismissed. As to Shilton, .he had admitted that he was there merely for the purpose of having a drink. It was unfortunate for him that this was the position. Doubtless he considered being there at the invitation of Northcroft that he was perfectly safe. He was not safe, however, and he had committed a breach of the Act. Mr Johnson pointed out that Shilton had committed the breach in innocence, and a conviction might have a far-reach-ing effect. His Worship said he regretted that he could not regard the matter as trivial. There had been a great many convictions lately where people declared they were guests. The defendant’s position rendered it all the more necessary for him to observe -the law. Shilton would be convicted and fined £2 and costs.