DRINKING AFTER HOURS

Southland Times, Issue 19720, 28 November 1925, Page 4

DRINKING AFTER HOURS

HOTELKEEPER IMPLICATED. HEAVY FINE INFLICTED. On November 10 at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in Lumsden the proprietor of the Elbow Hotel, J. Isaacs, was charged with three breaches of the Licensing Act, 1908. The first count was for opening his premises for the sale of liquor, the second for selling liquor after hours, and the third for exposing liquor or sale. A number of men, whom the police found in the bar when they raided the place, were charged with unlawfully being on licensed premises after hours. Five of the men, George Harrington, S. Hale, James McDonald, James Walker and J. Sarginson were represented by Mr Eustace Russell, while the sixth man, Mat. Jones was unrepresented by counsel. After evidence for the prosecution and for the defence had been heard at Lumsden the case was adjourned, and at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in Invercargill yesterday, before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., it was closed after argument had been heard. Inspector Bird represented the Police. Mr Russell said that on the evening of the alleged offence the six men had gone into the bar at Isaac’s hotel and when there had been found by the police. Three of the men were linesmen, two were fanners, and the other was an Invercargill man. The linesmen went to the hotel on a Saturday evening when the hotel was practically untenanted and had booked rooms for the night. The main question was whether or not they were boarders. Two of them had been in the habit of staying at the hotel and untH their departure next morning five of them did not leave the premises. Only one man did not stay the night. The others had breakfast and several of them had a bath before leaving. Under these circumstances Mr Russell submitted that the men were really boarders. The linesmen, Mr Russell continued, entered the hotel while no one was about and hearing voices inside they entered the bar. Hard on their heels came the police, w r ho were also attracted by voices in the bar. The men who had just entered had no time to drink their liquor or pay for it. There was, therefore, no evidence of an actual sale of liquor to either Sarginson or Walker. As far as Jones was concerned, Mr Russell said that there seemed to be little doubt that he was unlawfully on the premises. Referring to the point that the light in the bar was concealed Mr Russell explained that Isaacs had shaded it in order to avoid attracting other persons for a drink when he was serving lodgers. Indeed, as soon as the police turned the l "ht round so that it shone through the windows a prohibited person tried to enter the bar and the police and the licensee had to put him out. Mr Russell also said that if the Magistrate considered the men to be really lodgers, then the case against Isaacs would also fail. Inspector Bird submitted that the point at issue was not a legal question, but was one of fact. The men had really gone to the hotel for a drink and the camouflaged candle was merely evidence of a systematic method of supplying liquor after hours. If the men had been bona fide boarders the licensee should have turned on the electric light, and supplied them honestly. Had any other persons appeared on the scene they were in danger of being arrested for being on licensed premises after hours. When the police entered the bar and asked the men what they were doing, Isaacs immediately answered for them by saying: “They’re boarders.” The three linesmen were encamped along with six others at a spot about a mile away from the hotel. His Worship decided, to enter convictions in all save two cases. On the charge of opening his premises for the sale of liquor after hours Isaacs was fined £2O and no endorsement of his license was ordered. The two other charges against him were then withdrawn. Harrington, Hale and McDonald were each fined 10/- and Jones was fined £2. The charges against Walker and Sarginson were dismissed. Argument was also heard in tjie case in which the police proceeded against Archibald McAlister and J. Crosbie, of Lumsden, on charges of being illegally on licensed premises and of keeping licensed premises open for the sale of liquor, respectively. Evidence in the cases was taken at the last sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Lumsden. Mr F. G. CXBeirne pleading on behalf of defendants against the prosecution of Inspector Bird. Counsel for the defence first referred to the charge against McAlister, and said that the evidence regarding his visit to the hotel on the occasion in question without an invitation had been quite frank, Defendant, however, denied the allegation that he had gone in to have a drink though again he was frank enough to admit that had he been offered one he would not have been above accepting it. When the police found him he was being served with liquor paid for by a boarder and was, therefore, a bona fide guest at the time, this constituting his explanation for being on licensed premises. Proceeding, counsel quoted extensively from authorities which supported his contentions that as a lodger (McKillop (who treated defendant) was entitled to order liquor after hours and that once a lodger treated a friend the later became a bona fide guest. He submitted that the evidence put before the Court had not been offered in such a manner as to hide anything; and had been quite frankly stated. The charges might very well be dismissed. Inspector Bird held that the whole argument devolved upon whether McAlister was a guest or not. According to the evidence he went straight into the hotel and when followed immediately by the police was found being served with liquor. At that time neither the barman, or McKillop claimed him as their guest. The Magistrate: The very fact of him being asked to have a drink makes .him a guest. The Inspector:’A bona fide guest? The Magistrate: That is the point to be decided. The liquor, of course, was sold to the lodger. Inspector Bird: It would help us all if we could get an opinion on the point of what constitutes a bona fide guest. The Magistrate: As far as that is concerned I hold that McAlister was not a bona fide guest. The Inspector: Then he cannot buy liquor. The Magistrate: No, he can’t buy it himself, but in this case the boarder bought it. , , Inspector Bird: It appears to me that McAlister was illegally supplied. Judgment was reserved. In connection with these cases charges against W. Biggar and O. Taylor of being illegally on licensed premises, were dismissed.