LICENSING CONVICTIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 June 1934, Page 11

LICENSING CONVICTIONS.

WOMEN ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. FINES FOR THEIR COMPANIONS. As the result of the serving of liquor to Sidney Lawson, Gladys Lawson, Dell Roebuck and Edwin Day at 1.25 a.m. on June 22, 1934, James Gordon Dailey, night porter at the Imperial Hotel, New Plymouth, was fined £2 and costs 10s, at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth, yesterday. Herbert John Davis Power, licensee of the hotel, had a charge against him of selling liquor after hours dismissed. - -

Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., stated that Power was legally responsible for the acts of his servant, but it would be an injustice to penalise Power’s pocket on his reputation as a licensee for an act he had apparently taken precautions to prevent. As for Dailey, on the best construction that could be placed on his actions, he had been somewhat careless. Of the party that had been served Lawson seemed to be the one most to blame. He had invited the party inside and would be fined £2 and costs 10s. Mrs. Lawson and Miss Roebuck would be ordered to pay costs 10s, and Day fined, £1 and costs 10s. The Magistrate refused -Mr. St. Leger Reeves’ application for the Suppression of the names of Mrs. Lawson and Miss Roebuck. No moral obliquy attached to a woman going to an hotel with her husband, or to an employee, going to an hotel with her employer and her employer’s husband, said the Magistrate. G. Ball pleaded not guilty bn Power’s behalf, and guilty on Dailey’s account. . POLICE STATEMENT. > Senior-Sergeant E. T. C. Turner stated that Power returned from Auckland on June 21, and retired to bed at 11 p.m. Power handed the keys to Dailey before retiring, Dailey having been instructed to sell liquor only ,to boarders. At 1.25 a.m. Lawson with a party in his car pulled up at .. the hotel. They were admitted to the hotel, and supplied with liquor by Dailey, who received payment Constable E. E. Strawbridge, who was on duty at the time, saw the four persons enter the hotel, and come out five minutes later. Questioned, the party admitted having been served, and Dailey admitted serving them. Power, although not morally guilty, must be held responsible for the acts of his servants. It was part of Dailey’s duty to serve from the night bar any lodgers requiring refreshments, stated Mr. Ball. Dailey had been expressly forbidden to serve any other persons than bona fide lodgers. Power was in bed at the time, and knew nothing of the occurrence until later in the morning. He respectfully suggested the charge against Power should be dismissed. The Magistrate: Was Dailey a recent employee, who did not know the rules, .or were the persons served particular friends. Why did it happen ? Mr. Ball replied that it appeared there was a slight conflict of- testimony between Dailey and Constable Strawbridge. The facts were that a man who was engaged, in showing a film in connection with pig-breeding was' a guest at the hotel, and it was this man’s practice to return to the hotel at midnight or after. It was this guest’s practice also to bring with him for supper at the hotel two people, interested in the film. This occurred on the morning in 'question, and the porter was instructed to, provide supper for the three, and prepare for another party who would follow soon after. A few minutes later the door bell rang, and Dailey, it was alleged, assumed Lawson and his party to be the guests expected, and admitted them. The party went into the lounge, and when Dailey entered later he noticed the second party at the table next to the bona fide lodger and his guests. Some money was lying on the table, and drinks were asked for and supplied. Dailey’s suspicions were aroused that the newcomers were not the guests of the bona fide lodger, and it had been his intention not to serve them with a second drink had they asked for it. • Senior-Sergeant Turner stated that Power had three previous convictions for breaches of the Licensing Act, the dates being November 30, 1929, December 18, 1929 and August 6, 1931. The Magistrate said the last conviction was three years old, and apparently referred to some such case as the present one, as was indicated by the fact that on each Power had been ordered to pay costs. ADMISSION BY DEFENDANTS.

A plea of guilty was entered by Mr. Reeves on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Lawson, Miss Roebuck and Day. The facts given by Senior-Sergeant Turner were that Lawson had pulled up his car outside the hotel. He then got out and went to the comer of Currie and Devon Streets, having a good look around. He went to the hotel door and a conversation ensued there. The party entered the hotel, and remained five minutes. Constable Strawbridge approached them on their leaving the hotel. Lawson acted as spokesman, and it was at first denied that the party had been in the hotel. Mr. Reeves stated that Lawson, his wife and the other two defendants had been to a friend’s house, and Lawson, who had a car, offered to drive the others home. On the way home it was suggested that, because it was so cold, the party should endeavour to get a “spot.” The party entered the hotel, and no suggestion was' made to the porter that they were guests, although the porter may have assumed that they were guests of the lodger mentioned by Mr. Ball. This was possible as Lawson actually was known to this lodger. No attempt had been made to deny that the party had been on the hotel premises, and there had been no thought of calling for a second drink. He asked for the suppression of the names of the female defendants. Mrs. Lawson was in .business and Miss Roebuck was her assistant Publication of the names might be harmful to the business.