ROYAL HOTEL ON APRIL 10.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16466, 19 June 1919, Page 3

ROYAL HOTEL ON APRIL 10.

TWO CONVICTIONS AND ONE DISMISSED.

Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., this morning gave his judgment in the cases heard last Thursday in which William George Eraeny, licensee of the Royal Hotel, was charged with keeping his house open and also exposing liquor for sale during closing time, and in which George H. Knight and Patrick B. Fitzhorbert were charged with being unlawfully on the premises. The prosecutions were an echo of the liquor referendum of April 10. In reviewing the evidence in the case against Eraeny, his Worship said there appeared to have been no difficulty for anyone to get to the slide at tile time in question. He could not help concluding that liquor would have been supplied to one of the two men at least if the police had not intervened. In addition to the defence on tho facts, there was a further technical defence relied on. It was urged that on .reading the different statutes relating to this subject it would be found that neither “keeping open” nor “exposing for sale” was an offence on election day, the only thing forbidden being “selling.” It seemed to him that the intention was to close hotels on April 10, and not merely to prohibit selling liquor. There were many reasons tor tills. In cases like this where there were seemingly irreconcilable statutes tlie later enactment was the governing one. Defendant would be convicted for exposing for sale and fined £5 Is and costs (7s), security for appeal being £lO, plus amount of fine and costs. The charge of keeping open would bo dismissed.

Regarding the case of Knight, Mr, Poynton said: ‘ ‘ln defended cases of this sort all kinds of excuses are made, but to say that a customer and friend of a hotelkeecer would go to the slide, ask for change of a pound and go away with all, without asking for a drink, is putting too great a strain on the credulity of the court. lam not satisfied, in the words of the Act, that ‘his presence on such jnemises was not in breach of the provisions of this Act.’ He will bo fined 20s and ordered to pay costs (75).” “This defendant’s case is slightly different,” said the Magistrate in his judgment in the case against Fitzherbort. “He was engaged on that day working in the interests of the hotelkeepers in getting voters to the booths. He swore he went to the hotel to see if anyone had not voted and knocked at the slide, which was opened by the licensee. He did not come in with the man who said he was seeking change, but before him. It was unwise for him to go to the slide on such business during closing hours; but then there is just sufficient doubt in his case to give him the benefit of it. The glass of beer was most likely for the man who changed the note. The case is dismissed.”

Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for each defendant.