Alleged Sunday Trading

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 75, 26 March 1923, Page 6

Alleged Sunday Trading

CUiAKOE AGAINST, LICENSEE.

TWO BOTTLES OF BEEK. At tho Court this afternoon, David B, N. Cook, licensee of the Empire Hotel, Stratford, was charged with having on February 11th, (a.) kept ITis premises open during such time a s the law required them to l>e closed, and (b) supplied liquor to Fridolin In--dorhit 26ll -

Mr O’Dea appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty to each charge.

In evidence, Inderbitzen, a laborer, residing tin Juliet Street, said that ho left his home about 10 o’clock on the morning of Sunday, February 11th. , ,1 Sergeant Dale: When you left home did yon have anything with von ?—Witness: No.

Sergeant,, Dale: Didnt you have a bag and two empty bottles? —Witness : I don’t think so.

Mr O’Doa objected to witness r oe-. ing cross-examined by the Slergeant. Continuing, witness sa£d ,he went into the Empire Hotel yard and picked up the bag with two bottles i of beer, Which he had planted on the previous Saturday. He just picked up the bag and went home by way of the railway, platform. He did not see Mr or Mrs Cook. On the plat; down off the platform and crossed the down off the platform and cossed the lines to a truck where witness had been unloading coal. He went there to see a ticket on tho truck. When Sergeant Dale came over to the truck witness gave Him the beer. Witness found that his mate had taken the ticket off the track. A constable came along and witness, Sergeant Dale, and , the constable went to t 1 • Empire Hotel. Witness and the constable went into a private room. Sergeant Dale and Mr and Mrs Cook later came ;into the room.

Sergeant Dale: J)o you remember me telling Cook that you told me you had got the foeer from Mrs Cook, in the bar that morning and had paid 2g 6d for it?—Witness; I can’t remember. I was too excited. , Sergeant Dale; Do you remember Oook sajling: “Them’s the ones you got last night.”-—Witness; No., The Sergeant; Do you remember saying; “No, them’s the ones,l got this morning?”—Witness; No. The Sergeant; Were you in the hotel that morning?—Witness; No. Mr O’Dea objected to a statement mad© by witness l to the police being read at this point. He also objected to cross-examination based on it, and the Bench ruled. against-Jts admissibility.

Giving evidence, Sergeant Dale said that in the railway yard Inderbitzen did not seem. to be examining any,,trucks, and seemed chiefly desirous. of avoiding witness. As a result of conversation, Inderbitzen handed over a bag containing • two bottles, of beer. In the room in the hotel witness told Cook that. Inderbitzen had f said he brought two empty bottles to the hotel, and that Mrs Cook went to the bar and served him. Cook said to- Inderbitzen; “Those are the two you left , r last night,” Inderbitzen replied : “No, I bought them this morning.” Witness said to Cook; “You can’t try that on } because he has already told ns he brought the empty bottles with him.” Cook replied; -.“I know ho does that sort of thing.” Witness said to Mr s Cook; “Have you any-, thing to say?” She replied; “No, Sergeant.” Mr O’Dea; What were you doing at the station that nioring?—The Sergeant ; I was doing my duty. Mr (TDea; You were not there locking for breaches of the licensing laws?—The Sergeant; I was just on, duty. Mr Q’Dea; I wanted to get from yen that yon were , not there seeking to catch persons dodging from hotel to hotel for drink.—The Sergeant; I was just on duty. Anything might turn up. Somebody might break into the railway station. The Bench ruled that Sergeant Da’e need say no further than that he was on duty. Constable Chesnutt gave corroborative evidence. To Mr O’Dea : Inderbitzen said: “Those are the ones I got this morning.” The Sergeant did not say the words, seeking to make Inderbitzen say them. This closed the police case.

Mr O’Dea submitted that the strongest evidence was required in suck a ease. If Inderbitzen had given Scigeant Dale, there would not have evidence along the lines desired by been sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. It had been laid down in ai previous case that a conviction should not be based on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, or •n the evidence of two or more accomplices. It had, been laid down that the wife of a licensee had no authority to make a safe, and even if Mrs Cook had made a sale a conviction should not follow.

Summing up, the S.M. said he believed the story told that day by Inderbitzen was a different one to the cne he told the Sergeant. But the thing to be considered was whether or nof. evidence had been adduced that day to,justify a conviction. Ho had to find that sufficient evidence had not been adduced, and both informations Would he dismissed.