CHARGE AGAINST LICENSEE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14840, 18 February 1919, Page 5

CHARGE AGAINST LICENSEE.

I m — ! The charges against Alex. Stapleton Caulton, licensee, of the Motu Hotel, were again brought 'before the Magistrate's Court to-day. They had - been heard before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., a few weeks ago and were adjourned sin© die on the application of the police, as one of the main witnesses for the prosecution was missing, and had not been located. I The charges were -as follows : — (1) That on October 24, accused supplied' liquor to James o 'Donovan; (2) did permit William Shanahan to be drunk on the premises ; (3) did supply Henry Clifford Flavell with liquor; (4) did permit Flavell to be drunk on his premises ; (5) did permit James O'Donovan to-be drunk on premises; (6) did assault Henry Clifford Flavell ; (7) breach of the War Regulations regarding anti-shouting; (8) did permit Samuel Saxton to. be drunk oni premises. James O'Donova* said he /was 18 years of age, and was at present employed' at the Wairoa Freezing Works. Prior to ! that he was employed on; the railway at Motuhora, and resided at the boadinghouse there. He remembered October 24, when he went to the hotel with Flavell and Saxton about 3 p.m. Flavell went with him. Saxton was already m the bar, and Shanahan came m afterwards. When witness ''.went into the" ! bar the licensee was serving m the bar. ; Flavell called for port wines, which /were served by the licensee and paid for by each, ... Tjiey called for a further drink, each paying for his own. Whisky was placed on, the counter for some other chaps who came m, and Flavell helped himself to the whisky. Witness had two or three drinks before the (whisky was placed on the counter. Flavell might have taken a number of drinks. The licensee did not ask witness his age. Hehad about six or seven drinks. He did not oonsider he was drunk. While he (witness) was m tne backyard, Flavell struck, a returned soldier, and accused stopped him by striking Flavell m the face. Sub-inspector Dew: Was the licensee drinking ? — Yes. Did anyone pay for it? — I don't know. Did you?— No. • ;What'. was Flavell like when he left the hotel? — No more drunk than I was. Before leaving did you buy some more liquor? — Yes, three or four bottles* oC wine. Two bottles of it 'belonged to me. There was no wine there when the disturbance was going on? — No. You returned after the row and got the bottles from the bar? — Yea. Witness said as far as he could remember he went to the stables after leaving the hotel. He did not remember leaving the stabiles, m a car, Sub-Inspector Dew proceeded to question the witness on the inconsistency of his evidence when compared with that submitted m the Motu court. His Worship said the evidence given previously was irrelevant to this case, and if the cross-examination was- proceeded with it (would only serve to shake his credibility as a witness. Sub-Inspector Dew : Did. you sign the statement (produced) at the Motu Court? —Yes, but I' did not know what was m • it. y T6 'Mr. -. Burnard : After leaving the hotel he weni to the stables, where he had a . lot of drink. The police constable did not see witness leaving the hotel. Witness was drunk after having the drinks m the stable. In view of his being drunk immediately after he would not be certain of what, happened m the bar just prior to that. He had the drinks with a "dash" of whisky m the bottom of the glass. He could not be sure of the number.,. pi;, drinks he had. When Flavell took the whisky decanter it was not with the will of the licensee. Because of the fact of his being drunk immediately after he couldf not say what his condition was m the bar. Constable Williamson almost asked witness to swar that accused was drunk. At the*timc(>6f ; \the flood he stayed at the hotel, and; went into the bar with another man. The licensee would only give him lemonade. Witness did not say he was over 2\ years \on that occasion. He could not say whether Mr. Caulton's barman was there when the incident happened. Witness heard Constable : Williamson say m the Motu Court that '.'Caulton was so drunk , he knew nothing about it until his wife told him." Flavell, m ordering the liquor, said he was taking it to Motuhora. Witness was of opinion* that he would not look 21 years of ;age. /The defendant, Alex Stapleton' Caulton, deposed that the youths were not drunk, and!, he could say that emphatically. Flavell said he was sorry for striking the soldier, and asked for the bottles. As" to the question of ■ 'shouting," h© did not permit qny . breach whatever. The reason why he (witness) took part m the-, assault , was that he heard) there was going to be a row. in the backyard. Wheti h e ' got there lie saw the soldier's face cut, : and he (■v^itness) then 'struck Flavell ' ,to take the soldier's part. ;.-■,■>■ ' To Sub-Inspector Dew : •; Witness did not remember saying m the Motu Court "that witness knew. O'Donovan was under age, but so long as he supplied him with port wine he was safe." Be Flavell taking the whisky out of the decanter, he- (witness) was not a consenting party, and reprimanded him. He supplied liquor to the youths because during his 14 years as a publican "heL did not know that it was not permissible to serve people under age with port wine to take away for someone else. Witness had not been drinking m any of th c hotels with Flavell (junr.). Witness did! not tell Flavell (senr.) that he remembered nothing of the affair until afterwards, when his wife told him about it. He did say he was sorry he struck Flavell (junr.), as it was 'against his grain. In connection with th a assault, he attacked Flavell by way of punishment for hitting <a returned isoldier. The boys were sober, .and witness, attributed Donovan's drunkenness to what he consumed m the stables. Witness had a few drinks. No one "shouted" for him except boarders. He did not ' "shout" for them. The soldier m question was on full pension. His Worship said the evidence led covered quite a series of offences. By consent all the cases were taken together, although the eight counts arose out of the one incident. The defendant denied th e allegations of the police, and His Worship felt satisfied that accused was a good licensee. Whether any conviction was entered, on the counts dependfed upon the' evidence. Re the charge of a breach of "th c antishouting regulations, he regarded the evidence was not sufficient to center a conviction, m view of the fact that the licensee asked the age of Flavell ' before supplying liquor. Flavell was a well-built youth, and was apparently over the age of 21.- With 0 -Donovan the position was different. He was quite apparently under the age of 21. In fact, he (his Worship) picked the lad to be 18 years of age when he came forward to give evidence. A convicrton would be entered on that count. Re supplying the youths with liquor, his Worship said he felt quite- satisfied tha£ they- were given more liquor m the bar than was. good for them, as was indicated by their behavior m the yard. "On the charge of permitting drunkenness, the evidence was incomplete, and! the charges would therefore be dismissed. The charge of assault was clearly proved, and, m fact, admitted. The accused m hie evidence practically admitted that it was a punitive expedition. As a private citizen „he had? no right to do so. On that charge he was convicted and fined £3. ; . When the question of witnesses' costs was being considered, his Worship said he would like to hear from O'Donovan his reason for non-appearance';* Witness, said he had no means of coming to Gisborne, and' he secured anotnei" position at Wairoa. His Worship said he felt inclined to disallow ,his expenses. Sub-Inspector Dew : He has been given £2 15s. His: Worship: We will let that go, but he will be allowed no costs, as he should have, notified the -Court and not caused all the inconvenience and extra expense to the parties. On the charge of assault, accused was fined £3, with witnesses' expenses and

Comb costs, ijti 16s. On tho chargo of supplying liquor to O'Donovan, apparently under the age of 21 years, a fine of £2 was imposed, with 9s costs. On the application of Sub-Inspector Dew the charges m connection with alleged supplying Shanahan and Saxton with liquor were withdrawn owing to the lack of evidence.