UNDER TWENTY-ONE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 112, 17 June 1914, Page 5

UNDER TWENTY-ONE.

LIQUOR FOR YOUTHS.

LICENSEE FINED. James R. Pawson, licensee of the Prince of Wales Hotel, Colombo Street, was charged before Mr Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning with having supplied liquor to a person under 21 years of age. Mr Cassidy appeared for Pawson, and Sub-Inspector M'Kinnon prosecuted.

Charles William M'Fedries said that he was a seaman on the Wahine, and was aged 18 years. On June 2he came up to Christchurch and went to the Prince of Wales to see a mate off the ship. He had a rum and a shandy. The licensee, defendant, served him. He was not asked his age. To Mr Cassidy: He was not a seaman on the Wahine any longer. He was marked as a deserter because he got run in when he was drunk. On the morning in question the ship got in at 6.45 a.m. He was working until about 7.30 a.m., and then got the day off. Witness had a day off on the Tuesday on which he came up to Christchurch. At about 10 o'clock in the morning he went to the hotel, entering by the side door in Colombo Street. From there he went into the side bar, where Pawson, the licensee, was the only one present. The witness ordered the secontf lot of drinks, and Campbell, his mate, ordered the first.

Witness was cross-examined by Mr Cassidy as to the identity of the man who served him, but he persisted in his original statement that it was Pawson. Sergeant Bird said that he went with the last witness to the Prince of Wales Hotel to see if he could identify the person who supplied the liquor. M'Fedries pointed out the bar where he was supplied, and identified the licensee as the man who was behind the bar and had given him the shandy and the rum. The licensee denied ever having seen M'Fedries before. It was a well conducted hotel, and he had never heard any complaints against it. Mr Cassidy maintained that the defendant was a man who had had licenses in many places in New Zealand. He had never come in contact with trouble before. The ages of people were always in dispute, and it was for the Magistrate to say whether the youth M'Fedries was likely to be recognised as under 21 years of age. There was an even chance that if he came in with an older man it was quite possible that he could be passed over. There was an anomaly in the Act which provided that a licensee could supply as much liquor in bottles to be taken off the premises to any person over 13 years of age. A significant fact was that the companion of M'Fedries, Campbell, was not called as a witness. Mr Cassidy asked his Worship to dismiss the case on a question of fact, holding that the boy might easily be taken for twenty-one. At the same time the licensee would deny that he saw M'Fedries on the day in question.

The Sub-Inspector said that the man Roderick Campbell would be brought if Mr Cassidy wanted him, or if his Worship was not satisfied with the evidence of the other witness. James R. Pawson said that he had held a license for forty years, and this was his debut in court proceedings. He had no recollection of M 'Fedries having been in the hotel.

His Worship said he was quite satisfied that the offence had been committed. M 'Fe dries was well under twentyone; in fact, he was only seventeen years and some months. The license would not be endorsed, as defendant had a hitherto unblemished record. He would be fined £5. TWO FINES.

Sarah Holt, licensee of the Sandridge Hotel, was charged with having supplied liquor to a minor, Charles William M'Fedries and William Mark Beckett, through her agent, Catherine Evans, wha was also charged. Mr Cassidy appeared for defendant and said that as his .client's servant had no memory of having served the boys he would have to plead guilty. She could: not go into the box and say that she ■ was unaware of the age of these boys, for she could not remember them at all. i

Sergeant Jackson, in charge of the Sydenham district, said that the house was a well-conducted one.

His Worship said that this was a different case when two boys aged 15 and 17. years respectively were served with liquor. In Pawson's case a boy came in with a man, but here two boys together were served. There were two offences, but they were arising out the same set of circumstances.

Sarah Holt was fined £l, with costs, and Catherine Evans was fined £7 with costs.

Mr Cassidy said that his Worship might make these boys go without their expenses and order the money to be put in the poor-box. They were the cause of all the trouble. '' They weren't the cause of all the trouble," objected Sub-Inspector M'Kinnon ''if they hadn't been served there would have been no trouble." THE KING GEORGE.

James Meikle, licensee of the King George Hotel, .was charged on six counts with having supplied liquor to persons under 21 years of age. Mr Hoban appeared for Meikle and said that his client had made a statement to the police. He had found the boys in the billiards-room after they had been served by the barman. As soon as he saw them he put them out and took away the drinks. He then asked the barman why he served them, and dismissed him summarily. Meikle also was charged with allowing drunkenness on his premises. SubInspector M'Kinnon said that these boys were drunk when they went to defendant 's hotel, having previously consumed a bottle of whisky obtained at another house.

Charles Donovan, the barman in question, was charged with having served the boys and with having served a person under the influence of liquor. He pleaded guilty to the first and not guilty to the second. In the witness-box he said that he had been sitting up two nights with his wife, who was in a very, critical state of health. He had had no sleep for two days, and was so worried that he had not noticed to whom he was supplying the liquor. His Worship said that this was a case in which it was also the offence of the servant, but this barman was in a much more serious position than the other. The barman would be fined £3 for supplying the person under 21 years, and £3 for supplying an intoxicated person. The licensee would be fined £4 on one charge of supplying liquor to a minor, and £4 for supplying liquor to an intoxicated person. "It is a very serious ease," said, his Worship, "aud I'm letting you down very lightly."