LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18030, 19 January 1923, Page 6

LIQUOR AFTER HOURS.

FAIR CULPRIT FINED.

A QUESTION OF IDENTITY

Probably one of the most difficult laws to administer is the licensing law, and last Friday a case was recorded in the “Herald” which was made unusual because of the nature of tlie evidence given by police witnesses. The facts, briefly, were that three men pleaded guilty, and (were fined, for being on licensed premises after hours. In the bar at tho time of the unexpected appearance of Senior Sergeant Fahey and Constable Sampson were the barmaid and the barman. The latter was charged last week with supplying liquor after hours, but the information was dismissed owing to uncertainty on the part of tho three men as to who had actually served the liquor. At yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court Frances Clunes, the barmaid, was charged, on two informations, with supplying tlie men with liquor, and, defended by Mr W. D. Campbell, she pleaded not guilty. Senior Sergeant Fahey and Consffcablo Sampson gave evidence as to finding the men in the bar after 6 o’clock, each with a drink in front of him.

Only two of tiro men ,wero called yesterday to give evidence, the third having been discredited by the Magistrate at the previous hearing. As at the first hearing, neither of the two men would swear positively as to who actually supplied the liquor. One iwas almost certain it was the barmaid, while the other had no doubt about it being the barman till he met his‘'friend, who thought it was the barmaid. The latter witness “shouted” the drinks, but gave a “general call,” not addressed _to the barman or the barmaid particularly. He put down a 2s piece and got 9d change, but he could not say wbero the drink or the 9d came from, though he took them both. The barman, Angus McLaughlnn, was called, and ins evidence was the deciding factor. He and tho barmaid, lie said, were the only persons behind the bar at the time of the occurrence. He was busily engaged serving drinks to the porter for hoarders when the civilian witnesses were served. Ho did not servo the liquor, and tho barmaid was tho only other person in the bar. Mr Campbell stntod that the barmaid had had a. very busy day indeed, and just after 6 o’clock she was asked by tho licensee’s wife to servo some boarders who came into tho bar. She was oxtreinely busy at tho time cleaning up. but served tho orders as requested. If she did servo the police witnesses she was not aware of it, and doubtless took them as being of tho party of hoarders. Defendant was an experienced barmaid, and had no previous convictions. The Magistrate said ho was satisfied that the barman’s story was true. He imposed a fine of £2 and costs in one charge and dismissed tho other, allowing no witnesses’ expenses.