Breach of the Licensing Act

Southland Times, Issue 14798, 15 November 1900, Page 4

Breach of the Li censing Act

(From Our Own Correspondent.) Josephine Kenning, licensee of the Royal Mail Hotel, was charged at Lumsden, before S. E. McCarthy, Esq., 5.3V1., on Monday, with having sold liquor to George Herbert Stancombe on Sunday the 7th October last, at a time when the licensed premises should hare been closed. Sergeant O'Neill prosecuted, and Mr W. Macalister appeared for Mrs Kenning. Mr Macalister, in opening, said Mrs Kenlung's son had a key of the back door of the huts used as a temporary licensed premises ; he was in the hut used as a reading room on Sunday, 7th October, when some young fellows, chums of him, came along ; they wereinvitedjin,and some drink wa3 supplied to them, but all this was directly contrary to his mothers wish or instructions. Sergeant O'Neill said that Mr Macalister was not quite right. It came to the knowledge of the constable that some young fellows had been knocking about Lumsden the worse for drink on Sunday, the 7th October. He made enquiries, and found that three young fellows had gone to defendant's hotel ; some shouting went on, and drinks were paid for. Young Kenning was in charge, so far as he could see. G. H. Stancombe, Lumsden, said he, in company with two other young fellows— J. W. Wallis and James Harris — went into the hots used as* licensed premises by Mrs Kenning, on Sunday, the 7th October. They saw young Kenning, and drinks were supplied. Lemonade and cloves, a beer and a " shandy" ; did not pay for the drinks, and did not know if he was expected to pay. Other two rounds of drinks were served, but no money passed. He did not understand that Kenning shouted the drinks; he made a statement to Constable Millar. Mrs Kenning usually attended the bar herself. They had no particular reason to get liquor by stealth, neither had they any reason for wishing young Kenning to break the law ; was certain no money passed. John Wilson Wallis, Lumsden, corroborated the previous witnesses' evidence as to going into the hotel and getting drink pn the date in question, and that nothing was paid for it. He did not consider he was indebted for the liquor; had not offered payment to Mr Kenning ; it was young Kenning that shouted; did not see Mrs Kenning at all ; was certain he did not see young Kenning in the bar more^than three or four times before the fire. James Harris, Athol, said he went to Kenning's hotel with the two previous witnesses, about 4 p.tn on Sunday, 7th Oct. ; had no recollection who shouted; thought he had three ' ' shandies" ; saw no money pass, and heard nothing said about money ; was just walking about when he saw young Kenning. Constable Millar said he spoke to Mrs Kenning on the 10th October about her son Jimmy supplying drink on Sunday, the 7th October. She said she knew nothing of it. Witness saw James Kenning on the 9th October, and he said* he could not remember if the young fellows were in the place, but was certain they got no drink ; they were in the hotel on Saturday night and got seven bottle's of beer. Mrs Kenning told witness she was only in the place for a few minutes on Sunday night ; she reminded him there were other hotels in the place, and asked why she should always suffer. Witness never threatened to make Mrs Kenning ' ' sit up." He had told Mrs Kenning they were round to all the other hotels, but did not get drink ; did not say they got drink in the mother hotels. Mr Macalister submitted that no offence had been disclosed ; as the facts before the Court showed, Mrs Kenning was away from the hotel. Her son found his way in, and some shouting was done without his mother's knowledge or consent. No money passed ; these young fellows went straight to get the liquor, and got it for nothing, taking advantage of the young chap Kenning. There was no evidence of a sale. (Counsel quoted authorities.) His Worship said the first question was whether there had been a sale. The evidence was very much the same as in all these cases. They each shouted but didn't pay, but felt indebted afterwards. He held there was evidence of a transaction in the nature of a sale. The only question was whether the son was a person with express or implied authority to serve. He (his Worship) came to the i conclusion that the son was authorised to sell. Mr Macalister explained that the temporary premises were two huts pulled 'together, and the young fellow got into the back hut and through to the bar. Mrs Kenning locked up on Saturday night, took the key of the bar, and her son had no control or authority over the bar. He, however, on the Sunday afternoon, got into the bar. No money changed hands, although liquor was supplied ; under the circumstances he thought Mr Millar might have overlooked it. Mrs Kenning, being called, said she always attended the bar, unless called away on other business ; then, her son or daughter took charge. She always kept the key herself during the time the place should be locked. Her authority to her son only extended to the time the hotel should be open. She had no idea he could get into the bar. When accused by Mr Millar of her son having served drink, she told him she knew nothing of it, and asked him why he harassed Her; her son afterwards admitted that he supplied the drinks. She Considered she had taken every precaution to comply with the Act. James A. "Kenning, said he was in the hut reading on the 7th October, when the three young fellows came along j they were smoking and talking, they came in and he said " better have a drink." He had a key that opened the back, door, but he pushed the middle door open to get into the bar. The - liquor was not sold, and he did not score it up. He told mother that Millar had been talking to him, and at first denied serving the drink, but afterwards admitted it to her» He was very seldom in the bar ; his fUßtev generally took charge in the mother's

absence. He knew these young fellows well, and shouted ; there were two or three rounds of drinks. His Worship reserved his decision, to be delivered in Invercargill. He would look up and see if he could find a case where a Eerson having general authority to serve, ad a limit to his authority, or whether, having such authority, he binds the licensee.