HOTEL CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16452, 14 June 1921, Page 8

HOTEL CASES.

LICENSEE AND HIS PORTER CHARGED.

RAID ON EMPIRE HOTEL. If a man holding general authority from a licensee to sell liquor in the latter’s hotel, but having instructions from the licensee not to sell liquor after hours, yet does so sell liquor, is tiie licensee liable for the offence? This question was before Mr S. hi. M’Carthv. S.M. in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. In another case the licensee’s porter was charged with having obstructed the police. LICENSEE CHARGED. George Martin Ryan licensee of the Empire Hotel (-vlr u. S. Thomas) was charged with having exposed liquor for sale hours. Inspector Hendry said that the police entered the hotel through a right-of-way, and seven men were found in the bar. As a result of the raid all except one of them had been convicted of having been on licensed premises after hours. Defendant was not directlv personal!” to blame for the incident, which was allowed b w his bar--11 He is not there to make statements. but to pull beer,” said Mr Thomas, when a statement allegedly made to Sergeant Roach by the barman was in question. The Magistrate ruled that the barman's statement could be taken into consideration.

Mr Thomas said that the defendanthad an exceptionally good record as a licensee. He was away from tho Uoto when the offence was committed. He had given no authority for the bar to be open after hours, and ill fact had given specific instructions to the contrary. His wife was unable to exercise control over the bar at the time the offence was committed. The Magistrate said that there could be no reason to doubt defendant's statement that he had forbidden the barman to serve liquor after hours. He found, however, that the barman had general authority to sell liquor. The position was analogous to that in which a person instructed an agent to sell a property for £IOOO. If the agent sold at £9OO. and the purchaser had no knowledge of the limitation of his nu~ tbontv. the sale would stand. When the Magistrate indicated that he proposed to inflict a fine upon defendant. Mr Thomas said that he wished to appeal and would like a written judgment delivered. The Magistrate would realise that more than tho actual fine was at issue.

The Magistrate agreed to postnone iudgment for a week and to then deliver it in writing. ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION. Thomas Bailey (Mr A. Cuthbert) pleaded not guilty to a charge of obstructing a police- officer who was executing his duty. Sergeant Roach stated that in company with Constable England he was standing, in the right-of-way of the Empire Hotel. Hearing footsteps coming toward the back door, both of them stood close to the door- It opened about eighteen inches, and an attempt was then immediately made to slam it to. Witness saw the defendant and another man at the door. Witness entered the house in the performance of his duty, after forcing the door open against pressure bv defendant. Defendant said he did not know it was a police officer who was trying to gain admittance. Both witness and Constable England were iri uniform. The passage was dark, but it was lighter outside. Witness could see defendant in the passage, so it was reasonable to suppose that the latter saw the constable. Constable England gave corrobo ra■tive evidence. To illustrate the incident, Constable England and Air Cuthbert took up .positions on either side of one of the doors opening into the Court. Defendant, porter at the Empire Hotel, said that he had an absolutely clean record, so far as the police were concerned. “He did not observe that policemen were on other side of the door when the incident occurred. The Magistrate said he considered it doubtful whether the defendant did or did not know that the police were searching to gain admission. Accordingly, he would dismiss the case.