POLICE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 90, 20 April 1900, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

ALLEGBD SUNDAY TRADING. (Before Mr. R, L. Stanford, S.M.) On Thursday the charge against E. H. Oampbell, licensee of the T&ranaki Hotel, for exposing liquor for sale on Sunday, April Sf.h, was heard. Sergeant Stagpoole conducted the prosecution, the defendant being represented by Mr. Weston, who said he was instructed by Mr. Samuel, and mentioned that he did not, nor did Mr. Samuel, represent the Licensed Victuallers Association.

His Worship said that he had read the letter published on the matter, and intimated that he quits understood Mr, Weston to have mentioned the Association when applying for the adjournment, Mr. Weston replied that he did not think he did so, but that if he did, he I did not intend it.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Stagpoole stated that the information was laid under section 155 of the Licensing Act. For some time past, he said, Sunday tradiDg had been very prevalent at the Taranaki Hotel, and there bad been many complaints in consequence. Mr. Weston protested strongly | against statements as to what had occurred on other Sundays, and he submitted thai the case must be confined to what actually took place on the particular day mentioned in the charge. His Worship: Perhaps it would be better to confine statements to the particular charge. Sergeant Stagpoole, continuing, said that on the day in question he had the hotel watched by Constable Buttimore, the outcome of which was the present case.

F. Woon stated that about 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, April Bth, he went into the Taranaki Hotel to see a friend who was staying there the previous night. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bishop were sitting on the staircase, and he stopped talking with them. While there Mr. Jones and another gentleman came in, and they " chaffed " Mr. Bishop about not " shouting " since he had sold the Moturoa Hotel. Mr. Bishop said, " I'll shout," and asked them to go into the room near the bar. Ross and Mclndoe also went in. They had a drink, which was supplied by Mr. Campbell through an open elide. Saw Constable Buttimore come in, and witness heatd him ask some questions. Cross-examined: The constable spoke in a low tone. He seemed to come in like a flash of lightning. Michael Jones gave similar evidence. Cross-examined: Mr. Bishop "shouted" for others present. The bar was not open when thev went in. Mr. Griffin always stayed at the Taranaki Hotel.

Re-examined : Could not see ioside tbe bar when the slide was open. Did not know who the ethers were; they might have been known to Mr. Bishop or to Mr, Griftio, but not to him. Samuel Loveridge stated that he went down the lane at the side of the hotel, and walked into a parlour, the door of which was ajar. There were two or three persons present—all strangers to him. He went to the hotel to see a man who was working at the breakwater. His name was "Jim" something; could not tell the surname. The constable came in while he was there, and asked witness wha' he wanted, but before he could reply the constable asked his name. He replied " Jinks." Did not see why he should give the man his name, as he did not know him from Adam, the constable being in private clothes. Saw Mr. Campbtll come out with the constable. Remembered now seeing one of tbe previous witnesses at the bar door. His Worship said he thought it was only his duty to warn witness that his i evidence was unsatisfactory. Cross-examined: Did not have a drink that morning, and did not a«k for one. William Mclndoe gave evidence that he went to the hotel, and had a drink. He understood Mr. Bishop " shouted," but did not know that he did. While there was told by Ross that the constable had come in, and he then got away. A. Ross and J. Goodwin also gave evidence. I

Constable Buttimore stated that on Sunday, Bth April, he was instructed to watch the Taranaki Hotel. He was stationed in the Council Chambers, from where he had a good view of the front door of the hotel. From 10 till a quarter past he saw a number of paople go in who may or may not have been boarders. Mr. Campbell himself came out five or six times and looked up and down the road. There was also a young girl standingjit the front door and coming out a number of times and looking up and down. After the Sergeant and Constable Lynd had paid their round, the defendant came out and had a good look around. Outside there were from 10 to 14 men standing near by, some of whom went along the right-of-way at the side of the hotel, and some in the front door, From the shadows on the wall he could see a number of those who went down the right-of-way go into the back yard of the hotel. Between 10.30 and 11,15 he saw about 14 people, exclusive of those he knew to be boarders, go into the place. He noticed Mr. Jones and others going in, and he then went for Constable Lynd. As he was going in the direction of the Coffee Palace lie met a man named Craigniore, who asked him where he was going, He did not stop to answer, but in passing said he was going up the road. The man watched him pass, and something seemed to strike him suddenly, for he started walking quickly itpwards the hotel. Witness thought ho was going to. give warning and followed him through tie hotel, and found him talking in an excited manner to live or six men in the passage near the bar door. He did not take their names down, as he wanted to find Joees and the others. Tried three qr four doors, | which he found locked, and thinkin» there might be a sitting room upstair? lie went up and tried four or five doors. Two rooms were empty, a gentleman was in another, one he could not open, and in tlio last was Mrs. Campbell, to whom he apologised for opening the door. He came down and took the names of -ome of those present. Seeing a kej in '.ho bivr door he turned it and entered, V-'bon he found. Campbell in toe bar

pouring out beer into a pewter. A man (Woon) was standing in front of the elide opening to a room at the back—that man drank the beer. The top half of the door was wide open, and he could see ten or a dozen men (perhaps more) in the room. Recognised several. Asked Campbell to open the door and he did so. Witness had not to stoop in going through. Campbell did not move the upper part of the door, but merely opened the lower part. He could easily be seen when in the bar by persons in the room, and could himself see from there all those present. Asked Woon if he were a boarder; the reply was, " Yes." All except four of those present bu-riedly left the room. Loveridge was still in the room whan witness left. The bar and its contents could clearly be seen from the room. Did not sue Bishop at all. Went outside to get the names of those who had cleared, and saw one man running off. Campbell followed witness to the door and called to him, and he replied that he would see him (Campbell) presently. Subsequently he called and saw Campbell, who angrily asked him what business he had to enter his private rooms Witness replied that he was only doing his duty. Campbell said if he had been in his room when witness went there he (witness) would never have come down alive. Witness was severely cross-examined, but adhered to his evidence. Mr. Weston submitted that the case must fail, as it was on all fours with that of White v. Nester, in which it was laid down that it was quite allowable to expose liquor for sale when serving a lodger. Sergeant Stagpoole, in reply, said the point was: Were these men the guests of Bishop ? He contended that the evidence showed that they were in no way treated as such—many of them never saw Bishop—and that the case cited by Mr. Weston did not apply. Mr. Weston calUd Arthur Bishop, who stated that for the last three 01 four weeks he had been living at the hotel, and on the day in question "shouted " drinks to six others besides himself and the landlord. His Worship, in delivering judgment, said that he thought the case must be dismissed in face of the ruling in White v. Nester. Had the matter been left to his own decision he thought in all probability he would have con victed. He would take the opportunity to say a few words as to this hotel. Ab Chairman of the Licensing Committee he had heard of very grave charges of supplying drink during prohibited hours and that there was something like an organised system of supplying prohibited persons. On the first of tht month a complaint had been made tt him by the wife of a working man otto her husband getting drunk on Sundays at the Taranaki Hotel, or if not theie at the Terminus Hotel. He cited this case as one out of twenty bittei complaints. He had directed the police to watch, and he had every reason to believe that there was a large amount of Sunday trading going on at tbis hotel. The charge would be dismissed.