HOTEL LICENSE IS ENDORSED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18935, 4 December 1929, Page 10

HOTEL LICENSE IS ENDORSED.

DELAY OCCURRED IN ADMITTING POLICE.

In the Magistrate’s Court at *Lyttelton to-da}% Neill Samuel Brooke, licensee of the Lyttelton Hotel, was charged with exposing liquor during prohibited hours; also that, by Leonard Greenaway, a person in his employ, he did fail to admit, without unnecessary delay, two police constables in the execution of their duty. Leonard Greenaway, barman at the Lyttelton Hotel, was also charged with failing to admit the police. Mr H. A. Young, S.M., was on the Bench.

Mr Tracy, who appeared on behalf of both Brooke and Greenaway, pleaded not guilty to all three charges. Constable A. Abernethey stated that on October 27 at 9.10 p.m. he was passing the Lyttelton Hotel in company with Constable M’Burney when he heard loud voices coming from the interior of the hotel. As witness and Constable M’Burney were passing the main entrance he saw a man named Blackler coming out of the main door. Blackler tried to close the door behind him, but witness put his foot in between the door and gained admittance. The door of the bar was locked. Witness knocked, but there was no sound from inside the bar. They knocked and asked that the door be opened in the nam $ of the law. There was a delay of three minutes. He asked Greenaway to put on the light in the bar., and witness found a man named Wakelin. There were three beer glasses on the bar and a nip glass. On the mantelpiece there was a pint glass partly filled with beer. To Sergeant Dunlop: When witness entered, Greenaway told him he thought it was a boarder knocking. There was sufficient light entering from the street to allow liquor to be served. Evidence was also given by Constable S. M’Burney. For the defence Mr Tracy contended that there was no question of exposing liquor for sale. It was contended that the delay was not an undue one. Neill Samuel Brooke, licensee of the hotel, stated that he was away at the time the police arrived. To Sergeant Dunlop: Greenaway was employed as assistant barman. He had a financial interest in the hotel. • Leonard Greenaway said that when he returned to the hotel from a walk there were a few men playing crib in the bar parlour. Wakelin was also there and asked witness what room he was occupying that night. Witness went into the bar to get the guest book and Wakelin followed him in. Witness then heard a boarder knock at the door and say: “ Open the door in the name of the law.” He did not think it was more than a minute before he opened the door. To Sergeant Dunlop: Witness did not hear the word “ police ” mentioned by Constable Abernethey. He was not the licensee, but he had about 50 per cent financial interest. He did not think that had he applied for the license of the hotel it would have been granted. He had also been refused a billiards saloon license in Christchurch. Ralf Bucklay stated that the police did not knock and call out “police.” Witness knocked and called out. The Magistrate said that he was satisfied on the evidence submitted liquor had keen exposed, also that there was a failure to admit the police without undue delay. He called on the defence to show reason why the license should not be endorsed. Mr Tracy asked for an adjournment until the next Court day, so as to become aquainted with the case and submit a defence. The Magistrate said that he could not see why the case could not be gone on with straight away, but to allow Mr Tracy to confer with his client, he was prepared t$ adjourn the case for half an hour. Sergeant Dunlop submitted that under the dual control under which the hotel seemed to be run, matters had been carried out very unsatisfactorily. He was of the opinion that Brooke, as sole licensee, instead of as partner, was capable of conducting the hotel in a decent manner. The licensee had been convicted and fined £lO about twelvd months ago, for selling liquor after hou£s. Witness had reported adversely to the Licensing Committee with respect to the conduct of the hotel, andBrooke had been warned after the conviction that if he retained the services of Greenaway and got into any further trouble he stood in danger of having his license endorsed. After the adjournment Mr Tracy said that no arrangements had been made other than that Greenaway was prepared to leave the premises immediately. The Magistrate said that he had taken a serious view of the case in view of the fact that Brooke had previously been fined £lO for a breach of the Licensing Act. Greenaway had been refused a certificate of fitness to hold a license. He had also been refused a license for a billiards saloon in Christchurch, yet Brooke had entered into financial arrangements with Greenaway, and had continued to employ him after the conviction and the warning given by the Licensing Committee. Brooke would be fined £lO and 10s costs, on the charge of exposing liquor for sale, and the license would be endorsed.

Brooke and Greenaway were each fined £5 and 10s costs for failing to admit the police.