TE AROHA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tuesday, May 10, 1887. (Before Messrs W. F. Hunt and J. A. DOBSON, J.'sP.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 203, 14 May 1887, Page 2

TE AROHA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tuesday, May 10, 1887. (Before Messrs W. F. Hunt and J. A. DOBSON, J.'sP.

Criminal Case. Police v. Albert Gabolinsey .- Defendant in this case, is proprietor of the Waihou Hotel (which hotel was recently burnt down, since when the business has been carried on in a one room building > and was charged by Sergeant Emerson that he dii, during the time at which licensed premises are directed to ba closed, to wit, between the hours of 10 p.m. on April 25th and 0 cm. April 26th, keep open for the sale of liquor his licensed premises known as the Wahou Hotel. Defendant pleaded Aot guilty. For the prosecution three witnesses were examined by Sergeant Emerson, aud following facts elicited :— That several men were drinking at the hotel during tho night in question. That some of them « shouted' nft<>r 10 o'clock: That the door of the hotel was opened for some of the men to pass in and out; during the night. That Gabolinsej asked the men to leave, but one of the witnesses stated he did not do his belt to get thoso in tho hctel to leave, bat simply asked them to do so. as it was time to close. Two of the wituesses examined, and who were at the hotel during the night in question, stated they resided three miles or more distant from the hotel ; but one of thorn in his evidence stated that he went to sleep aboufe twelve o'clock, at which time there were several others in the hotel ; anil that from nine or ten o'clock till the time he went to sleep those men were there drinking. Sergeant Emerson, in his evidence, stated that : From information lie received on the morning of April 2Cth he proceeded to the Waihou Hotel. Found the house open, the last witness slpeping behind the bar, and the owner of the house he conld not find until half-an-honr afterwards, when he found him

steeping in the stable some distance away. Some of the witnesses who had given evidence were about the publ'.c house. On making enquiries of the neighbours* he was informed the conduct was veiy bad and very rowdy duiing the m h\. in fact one continuation of rows, shorn - ing, etc., all night thiough, end tYo house bad not been kept closed froi-i ten o'clock the previous night till tl" 1 lime he reached there. At this stage of the proceedings .1^ fondant's solicitor said he svas prep*. jr. l to admit the house was open and liq'i-i' consumed during prohibited hours, but contended that the Sergeant had failed to provo that it was paid for, and further that tho liquor was supplied to persons entitled to call for it, as beinj bonn fide travellers within the Meaning oi the Act. Defendant in his evidence stated he had neither watch or clock in tho bar, and did not know when to^ close his house beyond guessing the time. He requested tho men to .leave when he thought it was time to close ; and did not supply liquor after then except to those witnesses who lived at a distance. 'Shouted' himself for the men in order to get them away. Did his best to get them to leave. This was the first complaint under the Licensing Act that had been made against him. Had no sleeping accommodation in the licensed premises. The door was burst open, he did not know by whom, after he closed it. Alocal resident examined for the defence said the hotel had been fairly conducted for a village hotel since Gabolinsey took possession of it, some twelve months previously. During the night in question he awoko about, twelve o'clock and heard peorle talking excitedly, and also heard the same later on, about two or three o'clock, but the noise did not distuib him. Did not remember telling the Sergeant a few days ago, " It was time it was stopped." His impression when he awoke wos that the men were taking at the small building ; the public house. Defendants solicitor addressing the court contended that no evidence had been adduced proving either supplying of liquor or payment for same after ten o'clocit, unless i L , were to bona fide travellers within the meaning of the act. Sergeant Emerson directed the attention of the Bench to section 170 of the Licensing Act, which sets forth that : " In proving the sale or consumption of liquor for the purpose of any proceeding relative to any offence under this xVct, it shall not be necessary to show that any money actually parsed, or any liquor was actually consumed, if the Court hearing the case be satisfied that a transaction in the nature of a ?ale took place, or that any consumption Oi liquor was about to take place,'' etc., eto. The .Bench, in delivering judgement, stated that they had no doubt drinking was carried on in the premises during prohibited hours, but did not consider it hnd been proved that it had been supplied to any others than travellers within the meaning of tho Act. Case dismissed with a caution.