SEQUEL TO DINNER.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 1 June 1923, Page 7

SEQUEL TO DINNER.

LICENSEE IN COURT. GROSVENOR HOTEL CASE. - A sequel to the send-off to Mr R. St Forsytii in the Grosvenor Hotel on May 21 took place m tlie Magistrate s Court at Timaru yesterday, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., when J. P. Murphy, licensee of the Grosvenor Hotel, was charged with allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his premises during a time wheii such premises were directed to be closed. Mr Emsiie appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. Senior Sergeant Fahey stated that on the date in question a public farewell was given to Mr R. S. Forsyth, London manager of the New Zealand Meat Control Board, in the Grosvenor Hotel. At 8.37 p.m. Sergeant Packer and Constable Mayne heard cheering in the hotel and went inside. They found between 70 and 80 persons in the dining room toasting 'the departing.... guest. The police asked the licensee if he had a permit, and Mr Murphy said that he did not know he was committing an offence in not having one. He also stated that if he was breaking the law« it was in ignorance. He also explained that he had liquor consumed on the premises which he said he took into the dining room about 5.30, before the bar was closed for the evening. Mr Murphy next morning gave a list of all who were present, stating that if he had committed a breach of the Act he would stand the consequences. In giving the names of those present at the dinner the licensee stated that they were admitted by ticket, 21s each, which did not include the sale of liquor. Mr Emsiie stated that the facts had been clearly stated by the police, and were by now public property. The Magistrate: I don’t know the facts, Mr Emsiie. I have'- heard rumours and talk. Continuing, Mr Emsiie said that public invitations were issued to the send-off, which was' advertised in the public press. The committee responsible approached Mr Murphy to supply the dinner and undertake the function, which he agreed to do, and this included the supply of liquor to be consumed at the banquet. He did not knew that lie was committing a breach of the Act. The licensee took care to select the liquor and have it in the room about 5.30 p.m. on the day of the dinner. The dinner was at 7 o’clock, and was over about 8 o’clock, at which hour the waitresses left the room, and those present carried on the remainder of the function themselves. The licensee was of opinion that he was acting quite within his rights in so doing, and when, the. police arrived he was quite frank with them, and admitted that he v. as ignorant of having committed a breach of the Act. Mr Murphy had been conducting his hotel in Timaru for many years, and had held several similar functions, and nothing had been said about them. Probably it was only fair to state that on certain of these occasions, such as the visits of the English cricketers and the Springbok footballers, the visitors • were guests, and perhaps that was why no objection had been taken. The licensee, counsel continued, had a very large interest m the hotel. He rebuilt when there was little encouragement to do so 3 and lie would be the last man who would do, or allow to be done, anything which would bring him before the Court for such an offence. Counsel again referred to the fact that defendant had made no trumped-up excuses, but had been frank and honest in the matter from the outset. He submitted that the offence could be treated as not a serious one in the circumstances. His Worship remarked that the police liad to do their duty without fear or favour; it did not matter whether, it was the best house or .the worst house, irrespective of individuals or persons. The offence was an extremely unfortunate thing so far as the licensee was concerned. His Worship to the provisions of the Amending Act of 1917, which, he stated were very specific that no liquor could be consumed after 8 p.m. He did of any convictions under the Act in the last three years in Timaru, and it may have escaped the observation of licences In this case the licensee had honestly admitted the CC’to^disS h“S to licensees flint sncli functions IS’ffiSk nmlfut.™ coses ivould to "1&535? S taid £3 and costs^^^^^^^