A LICENSING CASE.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12770, 16 April 1910, Page 2

A LICENSING CASE.

POLICE ENTRY UPON LICENSED PREMISES. ' THE CASE DISMISSED. -A-t- the Ivlagistrnt-e's I ~t- yesterday, before Air Evans, S.M., Vaii Peter Carlsson, licensee of the Provincial Hotel, was charged with failing to admit to his premises without unnecessary delay a police officer' while -'iigaged on duty. The information was laid under section 22S of the Licensing Act. Sergeant Dougan appeared for the prosecution, and Mr A. T. Magiiinity foi defendant. Air Magiiinity said that defaulam was absent on liis farm, and could no. easily be reached, but as he understood Constable Drummond had beei. brought from Motueka, he was agree able to tho. evidence of that^omcer be ing taken before asking for an ad journment to allow of" defendant being present. Constable Brummond then gave cvi deuce that on tlio night of Wednesday; the 6th of April, he was on duty il .Bridge street. When the Post Otfici clock finished striking ten o'clock ht was at tlie Trafalgar Hotel corner. Ht walked slowly up the street, and ai about seven minutes" past ten was opposite the Provincial Hotel. The dooi which fronted Bridge street and was the main entrance to the hotel, wat open. As he stood he saw a man leave the front door and walk down tht street. He could not recognise tht man. Witness then walked acrost tho street towards tho entrance. Tht outer door of the bar was closed, anc the blinds were drawn, but there wat a light in tho bar as well as in the passage, and he heard voices in tht front part of the house. When he wat. a little morci than half way across the street the front door was closed. 'He walked to the door and knocked, saying, "Constable Drummond speaking, open the door, please." He could hear persons behind the door, and he distinctly heard a voice which he took to bo a girl's — it was a juvenile voice, say "Drummond' s outside." Immediately this was said the lights in both bar and passage went out, and he heard footsteps going down the passage*. towards the back of the house. Witness then looked at his watch, and it was nine minutes past ten. After waiting a minute or so he knocked again very loudly, and without mentioning his own name demanded admittance as a police officer. After about a minute and a half further wait, Mrs Carlssen opened the door, it being then exactly twelve minutes past ten, three minutes after the lirst knock. Accompanied by Mrs Carlssen ho went into the bar parlour and found Mrs Carlssen's father, her son, aged about 14, and a lodger there. The bar was closed, and there was no sign of drinking whatever. He searched the yard at the back of the house, and on returning noticed that the door leading to the right-of-way at the side was open. Mrs Carlssen said that it Was often open. He found no one in the back. On returning to thoj parlour he found Mr Carlssen there. Mr Carlssen said that he had been talking with an acquaintance up the street, and had just com© in. Witness asked Mrs Carlssen why she had not admitted him at once, as he felt positive that she, knew he was there. She replied that she did not hear him, as she was busy fii tho kitchen in the back." He told the Carlssens that he would report what had taken place, as he considered three minutes before he was admitted to be too long. Carlssen replied that he did not think there had been anything wrong in the hotel. Cross-examined by Mr Maginnity, the witness said that ha was decidedly of opinion that his first knock was heard. He could not agree that the 'footsteps he heard were those of the boy going to the kitchen, nor was it likely that the light he saw in the bar was roflectious from the street lamp, the parlour, and the passage lights. Even if the boy had genie to call his mother from the kitchen/there was unreasonable delay. The kitchen was about thirty feet from tho street door, and there were folding doors .across the passage about four feet from the front door. Sergeant Dougan said that he did not propose to call further evidence. Mr. Maginnity submitted that the evidence _of the constable did not disease sufficient cause for a defence to be entered upon. According to his own evidence there was not more thai .a minute and a half delay after the second knock, and in the : circumstances that could hardly be called unnecessary delay, while the cases that had been decided covering tho charge were dead. against the prosecution. Mr. Maginnity proceeded to cite cases, Mr Evans remarking that he had looted into these. The particular cases mentioned were Hendry v. Rolleston, 5 N.Z.L.R., p. 434, and Duncan v. Dowding, 1 Q.W. (1897), p. 575. These cases deal with the point of when the police are justified in demanding admission to licensed premises during closed hours. _ 'i'hei Magistrate said that in itseli the fact of there being lights in tho passage would not justify the assumption that a breach of the law was taKing place, and he doubted if a light in the bar so shortly after closing time would. The licensee had to keep the bar closed after ten o'clock, and his house closed against persons who were not entitled to be there after closing hours, but it was not incumbent on him to have all lights out after closing hours and pack everybody off to bed. The house might be full of guests and lights would be necessai-y in the passages. Therefore the fact of there beiny lights'was not sufficient "to justify a demand for admission. All that. could be scid of the man seen leaving the .hotel was that he was seen, there was nothing to show that lie had no right/ to be there. Taking that circumstance in itself, he did not think it sufficient to justify a damand for admission; The case of Hendry y. Rolleston, which was dismissed, was a stronger one than the present one. In that case a person was seen leaving the house, and a demand was mado for admission, about midnight. The night porter refused to admit the police till he was -instructed to do so. and thore was a delay of two or three minutes. There was no evidence of a breach of the Licensing Act. The information on the" ground of unreasonable delay was dismissed. It had also been held that the fact that there was singing going on in an hotel was not in itself a reasonable ground to suspect a breach of the Act. Apart' from these points, he did not think Constable Drummond had done sufficient to make it clear that he desired admission as a police officer in exercise of his duty. He said "Constable Drummond speaking, open tho door please"; he should have made it quite clear that the demand was from the police in the exercise of duty. Again there was nothing to show that it was a servant or agent of the licensee behind the door. If it was the little son of the licensee ho was neither servant nor agent, and a guest was not required to answer such a demand. Before conviction, it must appear reasonably clear that the demand was made upon, or within the hearing of, the licensee,, his servant, or agent; it must come under tlies notice of the person, and. there must be unreasonable delay af>er that. If the, first knocks were not heard by a servant 6r agent, and assuming that the second knocks were heard and answered, he did not think that there was unreasonable delay; Mrs Carlssen said that at the time ehri was in tho kitchen, and in the circumstances he could not hold that there had been unreasonable delay. The case was dismissed.