Breach of the Licensing: Act

Southland Times, Issue 15075, 22 October 1901, Page 3

Breach of the Licensing: Act

(FKOM A CASUAL CORRESFOKDEtfT. ) At the Riverton Police Court on Saturday before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., Thomas Mclnerney, licensee of the Globe hotel, was charged with having on Ist October, at 11.50 p.m. exposed liquor for sale, and, secondly, with having sold beer to two persons who were not bona 6de travellers or lodgers. — Defendant, who pleaded "not guilty," was defended by Mr W. Y. H. Hall, with him Mr A. Anderson. Sub-Inspector Green conducted the prosecution, aud stated that on Ist October (onstable Bvngham about 11.50 p.m. saw light in the hotel and heard loud talking. Ho tried the front door, which was locked. He then went round to the back door, which was not fastened, and on going in found some nine or ten persons, some of whom were lodgers. The bar was open, and two of those present, who were residents of the town, held glasses of beer which they tried to conceal. Replying to the constable the licensee stated that j he had " shouted" the beer. Constable Byngham stated that three of those present were residents of Riverton. One of those supplied with beer was standing behind the door ; the other was near the bar, and tried to hide his glass under his coat. Witness took hold of it and asked who paid for it. The licensee said "No one : 1 gave them the drink." Asked if all present were boarders, the licensee replied that all were except those supplied, and that they had just come in to get some information about the boat Gleaner, which wa9 overdue from the coast. They drank their beer and left the house with witness. The men supplied with the drink gave evidence that the licensees statement was correct ; that they had gone in to make enquiries about the boat and that Mclnerney said " have a drink before you go," which they did. Mclnerney gave evidence to the same effect and two witnesses called for the defence gave similar evidence. After hearing Mr Hall for the defence his Worship said, iiUer alia, " I am of the opinion that conviction should follow. It is quite possible in any case, however well proved, to take the points relied on and explain them away piecemeal, but that is not the right method to judge the evidence tendered. The proper way is to look at the evidence as a whole and to see if the defendant is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt ; and, looking at the whole of the evidence, I think a conviction should follow. No doubt tbe young men said nothing as to a sale taking place, but I think other portions of the evidence proved a sale. Unless the defendant desires to appeal I shall make the fine a light one." The defendant decided to appeal and was fined £5 Is and costs. The sum of £25 was ordered to be lodged in case of appeal. TF^t