A LICENSING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7331, 18 February 1902, Page 2

A LICENSING CASE.

«». ALLEGED SUNDAY TRADING. A CHARGE DISMISSED. At the Magistrate's Court thds morning, before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., Reuben Ogden, the licensee . of Storey's Family Hotel, was charged with selling beer to one William Lucas, who was neither a boarder in the hotel nor a bona fide traveller, on Sunday, Feb. 9. N Mr Kippenberger appeared' for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Inspector^ Ellison conducted the prosecution, and, after giving a brief outline of the case, called Sergeant Sheehan. Sergeant Sheeban stated that on Sunday, Feb. 9, at 4.45 p.m., he, visited Storey's Family Hotel in company with a constable. The outer door was 6pen, but the door leading into the bar was-scked. Witness knocked at the door, and was kept waiting for a short time, during which he heard a noise inside the Irar. Defendant, then unlocked the bar door from the inside, and the witness saw two men standing behind defendant in the bar. They tried to pass out, but the police stopped them, and the licensee also asked them to wait a bit. They said they were bona fide travellers, and the licensee stated that they had come from Lyttelton and the bays. The .two men gave their names as John Telfard and Matthew Lucas, and witness had since found that the latter's name was really William Lucas. Telford told him later on that he, himself, had slept the night before at Mrs. Parsonslg boarding-house, in Manchester Street, and Lucas at Mrs Holmes's house, just opposite. Telford said that they had had a glass of beer each and had paid for it. , The licensee admitted that this was true. There were in. the bar two other t men, who were said to be boarders. Telford was rather the worse for liquor, and one of the boarders was in a .similar condition. In answer- to a question from Mr Kippenberger,*witness said that he had stayed . in Storey's Hotel and had found it an exceptionally well-conducted house. William Lucas, a labourer, stated that he resided in Manchester Street, at Mrs Holmes'sr boarding-house, where he had slept on Saturday night, Feb. 8. On Sunday, Feb. 9, he went for a walk in company with John Telford. Telford suggested that they should have a drink, and they went into Storey's Hotel. They knocked at a door, and Mr Ogden came to it. Lucas told Ogden that Tie and Telford were travellers and wanted a drink. In answer to a question from the licensee, they said that, they had come from Lyttelton. Ogden said that coming from Lyttelton did not make them travellers, so witness said that they had come from the bays. They then went into the bar, and Ogden gave.vthem a drink each. Witness paid a shilling for the drinks. In answer to a question from the Bench,. witness said that he had been to Lyttelton during the day and' had not 'been able to get a drink there. ■■*-•■■'' Cross-examined 'by Mr Kippenberger: Witness had had! some difficulty in getting Mr Ogden to serve, him with drink, and 'had said that he and Telford had slept at the bays. B^had seen Telford in Lyttelton on the Sunday in question. John Telford, a cook at Kaiwarra Station, stated that on tire night of Feb. 8 he 'had slept at Mrs fParsons's, in Manchester Street. On Sunday, Feb. 9, he and Lucas went to Lyttelton during the afternoon, j On their return, witness suggested that they should try to get a drink. They went into Storey's Hotel, and sent a messenger j upstairs for the licensee. The latter came down and asked if they were travellers. They replied in the affirmative, Btating they had come from Lyttelton and the bays. They had some trouble in getting a tlrink. Witness had not had any drink in Lyttelton, and was not the worse for liquor. He" had. told Ogden that he slept the night before at the bays. ! . This closed the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr Kippenberger said that as each man had paid for his own drink, the case was concerned with Lucas alone. He submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the licensee was justified in believing Lucas to 'be a bona fide traveller. The licensee was clearly exculpated from all moral blame in the. matter. There was no concealment whatever. His Worshop here objected that the bar door was locked while the men were inside, but Mr Kippenberger said that the locking of the door was merely a precaution to keep out other people who might enter the hotel. Mr Kippenberger then called the defendant, Reuben Ogden, licensee of Storey's i Hotel, who told a story similar in all respects to that of the former witnesses. He had truly believed the men to be travellers, and as they looked very tired and dusty, he had taken pity on them an<J served them with dnnks. As a general thing, he refused' to serve any travellers, but this time he broke through his rule. J. J. Parmeree stated that'he had stayed at the hotel on several occasions and had found it well conducted. He knew that defendant always exercised 1 great care in ascertaining the bona fides of travellers. His Worship said that it was very hard to determine what were proper ■precautions for a licensee to take. In this case he must hold that the defendant had taken proper precautions and would therefore dismiss the case. 'He thought that hotelkeepers would do well to take advantage of. the section of tie Act which allows them to refuse to supply travellers. ,