A LICENSING CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10964, 6 May 1907, Page 4

A LICENSING CASE.

FRIENDS OR CUSTOMERS? An interesting case from Gisborne was heard at the sitting of the Supreme Court Ut Auckland on Friday. * G. P. Priestly, licensed victualler, Wae-renga-a-liika, Gisborne, appealed against the decision of Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., Gisbornei, who convicted appellant of a charge of exposing liquor for sale during prohibited hours, namely, on Sunday. Police-Constable Myles Doyle was the respondent. Mr J. R. Reed appeared for appellant, and the Crown solicitor (the Hon. J. A. Tole) appeared for respondent. By consent,^ the evidence taken m the lower CiOurt'.was . takeri' as theevidence of tins, K the rehiring, j The* evidence showed thaV on Sunday, -November 4Jast ; the • •ippellunt' did expose liquor ior sale m -his licensed*;' premises, -contrary to - -the forni of the ''Bt'utUte'-.h 'such . ca_e madfe ; -.;and- pro*, vided, and was tined^ • £5 is, and -ordered : to -;pay '__■■£ costs." "The appeUah.; m his pleading., said, he was not- guilty of the offence char^-d; that he 'did notjexpose liqiyjr. for s'nle ; that there" was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. -on the ■saidcliarge'-. tliat; the conviction was ' against thev weight of l-the evidence;, that it*' was riot.] shown* or, proved that he had committed^the bffente with wliich he was charged;" and that the convi.tion wqb .bad m law." _ . . .-.-, ■„*.-.■. . The efideilce "-was ■'■ to tlie "effect that Doyle visited the, • appellish.'s hotel on, - Sunday, November 4, at ii quarter past one, going-Viritb.the'-f commercial room. He saw the appellant and three other men standing at a small recess at the, entrance to the bar.' ■ Tjue slide leading fiom the bar to the conimercial room was open, and one of the people, William, Murphy, had a glass of beer m his hand'; Doyle asked Priestly* if he was keeping"open house on Sunday, and received the reply, these are. friends of mine, having a - drink before having lunch." Murphy offered a*- drjnk to Doyle, who replied, "No, you hay« liad quite enough .without- th_£glaßs 'of beer .you are now drinking." Doyle said that Murphy ,wias ih a state of intoxication, ,I'iie liqiior m the bar was fully exposed. One of tho men. present, Long, Said to Dbylej "Can. a jwrson not go into a V hotel "to get a. mdal?" Doyle replied;' "Yes ; but as soon nf you ask for Deer ypu commit yourself."* Wlien asked for his name, Long ■said it Was Frank Fordyce-.,! The appellant contended, arid his sta t^menFwas svupported by the men found m thenar, that the. Vvisitors irere-his guests'^ asked tq staj 1 ttf lunch, and to haye an ""appetiser'.' before eating. No diink was paid fbr,* nor was the lunch paid for. , If was 'denied that Murphy was intoxicated. '• ~ The" Crown solicitor mnintained* that 'the^viritors described themselves as, 'friends v bf r the licensee, and it was a matter of , the commonest knowledge that m cttsee. of this, sort the "persons found>i-n\a hotel' dh'Hrig':prphibitea h-o;ur_ l were prepared to say'thatlj/hey^were the 'friend^ of the /licensee, but* the" law, was .clear that a landlord cpuld nqt m such circurn-, • stances . convert-'fiis customers; into friends m the manner that lie (the^CVbw-i.Jßolici-t,brj cQnteridQd "was, ,-_fttighti'''tpiM*,dorie> When tlie constable interrogated* Long, he declined to give his na)ne, and, more; over, did not Offer any explanation of "*his presence, did not say, '"We have been invited ,Xo by Priestly." ,*.-*:; Two minutes', conversation would have explained the whole- position. The whole of the evidence given m the,* lower Court for tlie appellant had a -^"factory .mark'.' upon it." './■ -.'.'.:■• .*'"' '-■ - '* :*:-•: Mr Reed submitted that the law" was*-* clear upon the* point 'tl]£jb it was notjm offence, to expose liquor m a bar, m the absence of proof that the exposure was made for the purpose of'-snle, and the evidence on that point did not. prove tliat such' was the case. The licensee was perfectly justified m entertaining guests during prohibited 'hours, and. therefore, the whole question vi-as whether, m the circumstances disclosed m this particular case, if the- Magistrate was justified m disbelieving their evidence, these -persons found m the hotel were true guests of the appellant. ,Mr Reed *said there was nothing whatever to justify the Magistrate m remarking that he was. satisfied that had any 'other persons but the constable been present at the bar slide, that liquor would have been served.* There was nothing to support that inference of, the Magistrate. Considering all the circumstances and inferences,- ne; submitted ■that 'the appeal should be; allowed. A ''-;>' His Hoijor observed that be would have to read the evidence carefully before giving his decision. <•• ,