AFTER HOURS.

Thames Star, Volume LXV, Issue 19362, 20 March 1935, Page 2

AFTER HOURS.

SALE OF BEER.

Thames Hotel Case.

DEFENDANTS FINED

THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.

The licensing case heard before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Thames Magistrate's Court yesterday, in which Edward T. Dufty was charged with being on licensed premises of the Exchange Hotel after hours, Arthur A. Watson, the licensee, for allowing his premises to be open for selling liquor after hours, and Mrs. L. M. Watson, for supplying liquor after hours, was concluded in the afternoon, convictions and fines being entered in each case.

Sergeant J. Daly prosecuted and Mr. E. J. Clendon appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Clendon, in opening the defence, contended that the sale of liquor had been completed when the two bottles of beer which were paid for were deposited in the kitchen. Dufty had intended going to a dance with a party which included the proprietor's wife. Arrangements had been previously made and DuL'ty had gone to the hotel to sec if Mrs. Watson was ready, henee he had been lawfully on the premises. . Mr. Clendon submitted several judgments in support of his contentions that the sale of liquor was completed prior to 6 o'clock. Sergeant Daly contended that tho sale was not complete until tho licensee's wife had handed the liquor to Dufty later in the evening. Arthur Watson said he sold no liquor to Dufty in the evening, nor had he seen defendant at any time or given authority for the sale of tho beer.

Mrs. L. M. Watson stated that tho beer had been paid for and deposited in the kitchen before 6 p.m. Duftv was on the premises for the purpose of going to a dance with herself and party. She was not ready when he called and he asked for the bottles, stating that h( would not wait.

Edward T. Dufty corroborated tho evidence of the previous witness.

To the Sergeant, Dufty said he had made no mention of the dam* when apprehended, because he considered it purely a personal matter. His Worship held that a materia! part of the sale had not been carried out until the liquor was delivered. The sale had not been completed until Mrs. Watson had put the bottles into Dufty's hands. Even though Dufty'had been going to p dance with a party which included the licensee's wife, his presence oi: the premises was still tainted through his taking delivery of tin liquor. He would be convicted am 1 fined £1 and costs.

With regard to Mrs. Watson, Hi; Worship was of the opinion that ho act of giving the bottles to Duft; was within the meaning of "supply" as set out in the Act, and a conviction and fine of £3 and cost; would be entered. His Worship said Watson, tha licensee, had allowed the premises t'. be open for delivery of liquor after hours, hence he had committed a breach under the Act. He would b" convicted and fined £2 and costs.