ANTI-SHOUTING.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 835, 13 October 1916, Page 11

ANTI-SHOUTING.

THE CALEDONIAN HOTEL

FIRST CHRISTCHURCH PROSECUTION. AGAINST LICENSEE ANT) CUSTOMER. The first local prosecutions under Ihe recent War Regulations Act, in regard to "shouting,'" were heard at the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. The first charge taken was against ('barges Edwin Spedding, licensee of the Caledonian Hotel, for an alleged breach of section 5 of the War Regulation Act in permitting treating on September 20. Mi - Cassidy appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspector Mullaney prosecuted. John Vincenl Stewart, an engineer, living al 514 Madras Street, said he was present at the Caledonian Hotel, St. Albans, on September 20, about 9.30 p.m. Spedding was behind the bar serving drinks. Witness had a drink there. At one side there were seven men, with a beer or shandy each. They had fresh drinks; a half crown was put down, and Gd and 3d given in change, which the man put in his pocket. Witness finished his drink then and went away. The men appeared to drink beer or shandy. Witness's drink was "porter." Three pence was the price paid for beer. To Mr Cassidy: He was a Scotchman. Mi - Cassidy: Not many informers come from there, eh? The Witness: A lot of honest men. Mr Cassidy: Were you asked to go to the hotel on this expedition? The Witness: No. Mr Cassidy: Did you approach the police about this. The Witness: I rang up Sergeant Lopdell after witnessing the incident. Mr Cassidy submitted there was no evidence or even a suspicion to say that the hotelkeeper had "knowingly" sold liquor in the manner indicated. The placing of the halfcrown down might be interpreted in many ways. The men first might have paid the person who put Ihe money down. The Magistrate: I think there is a suspicion, and a case to answer. Mr Cassidy commented on the way in which the regulations, remarkably worded* had suddenly been "foisted" on the licensed victualler. They radically altered old customs, and were hard to understand. The defendant gave evidence that he had always obeyed Ihe anti-shout-ing regulations, and had placed a notice regarding the same in the bar. He remembered the night of September 20, and his notice was attracted by Stewart, who remained for a long time standing at the slide. He denied the incident as described by Stewart. The Sub-Inspector: Why did you take such particular notice of Stewart? The Witness: Because he was a stranger. The witness, under crossexamination, said there were two men at one slide and live at another, not seven and Jive as mentioned by the witness. Two shillings and threepence was returned as change for the 2/0 mentioned —not ninepence. The men all paid for their own drinks in shillings and sixpences. The cardboard notice regarding shouting was blown by Unwind behind a picture. "1 agree," said Mr Bailey, "that there is not enough evidence to convict. It is conflicting, and there is no corroboration. I do not like, also, to convict on the evidence of a private individual. I would prefer official evidence." Ihe case was dismissed. A FURTHER CHARGE. A further charge of permitting shouting on September 23 was then preferred against Spedding. Constable Taylor said on September 23 he accompanied Stewart to the Caledonian Hotel about 9.-15 p.m. He entered by the side door from Holly Road. There were two men standing at one slide and live men al another, 'they went to the slide where Ihe two men were standing and had a drink. Stewart had a stout and witness a shandy. About five minutes later one of Ihe men at the slide called for two drinks, which were served by Ihe barman. The man who called for the drinks gave Ihe barman half a crown, and received back 2/-. The drinks were shandies. On September 25 witness went to the hotel with Sergeant Lopdell and pointed out the barman to him. The barman was then ascertained to be Spedding. To Mr Cassidy: lie did not pretend to be drunk at the slide and did not have to be tint out. He was not the last man to leave the hotel, and Spedding did not request him to leave. lie identified one of the men at the slide as Williams. His instructions at the hotel were to lake notes, and it was not his duly to immediately announce to Ihe hotelkeeper thai he had committed a breach of Ihe regulations or to lake Ihe names of Ihe men al Ihe slide. He did not then know Williams, ami later did not say to Williams, "Are you the man who was at the Caledonian Hotel, a night or so ago, as I'm not sure." lie could not see the cash register from where he was standing, but was certain a halfcrown was put down on Ihe counter by Williams's friend. Witness then was standing at another slide, three yards away. He was certain the men had beer or shandies. He had positive instructions from the superintendent nol to warn the licensee immediately afterwards if a breach was delected. The Magistrate (to Mr Cassidy): T don't think you should ask the constable what his instructions were. John Vincent Stewart said he accompanied Constable Taylor to the Caledonian Hotel on September 23. There were four men at one slide, and Jive at another. Witness and the constable had a drink each. At one slide Ihe men paid for (heir own drinks. At the oilier a man said to a companion, "Have a drink," and placed half-a-crown on the slide counter; 2/- was handed back as Ihe change lo the man who called for Ihe drinks. Spedding served the drinks, which were beer or shandy. Witness left al closing time. Spedding did nol order Taylor mil. nor did Taylor pretend lo be drunk. Witness had a clear view of both slides from where he was standing. Sergeant Lopdell said he visited

I lu> Caledonian Hold in roinpanv I I willi Constable Taylor. Taylor pointed out the person alleged' to have sold the drinks. II was SpedIding. Witness informed Speckling! [ol' the charge, but Speckling did not|

reply. A notice regarding shouting was then turned to the wall and a picture placed over ii. Mr Oassidy asked whether the Magistrate would inspect the hotel premises lo see if the witnesses could have seen the alleged shouting al the slide. "It is not neee.ssarv," said Mr Bailey. .Mr Cassidy: The evidence in this case is very slight. The Magistrate: I think a strong case has been made out. Apart from the fact that the evidence is corroborated, the facts are stronger. Charles Edwin Spedding gave evidence in regard to the alleged incident. He denied that half a crown had been tendered and accepted for two drinks in the manner described. In fact, he noticed the constable and Stewart particularly from their strange conduct. Alexander Duncan, employed by Ward's Brewery, the owners of the hotel, said Spedding came and saw witness before the visit of Sergeant Lopdell, and mentioned he was to be charged with a breach of the regulations. The Sub-Inspector: The police had only just heard of it then. Mr Cassidv: I heard it myself in the city. (Proceeding.) EVASIONS IN WELLINGTON. WOES OF BAR EMPLOYEES. [Special to The Sun.] WELLINGTON, October 12 . The operation of the anti-shouting rule, forming part of the War Regulations gazetted some weeks ago, has ceased to be a novelty in Wellington, and many people appear to have adapted themselves to the new conditions without much difficulty. But it is undoubtedly a fact that many evasions are taking place, and reports that have reached the police suggest that the tendency to disregard the law in this respect is increasing. This tendency may account, in part, for the recovery that has been noticed in bar takings since the severe slump that followed the gazetting of the regulation. Licensees are still suffering loss, as compared with the conditions of two months ago, but the position, from their point of view, has tended to improve as the weeks passed.

Licensees themselves deny that there is any deliberate evasion of the law on the part of themselves or their employees.