HOTEL LICENSEE LET DOWN BY SERVANTS, GAYS MAGISTRATE

Wanganui Chronicle, 6 May 1947, Page 8

HOTEL LICENSEE LET DOWN BY SERVANTS, GAYS MAGISTRATE

“I cannot get over the fact that there was a supply of liquor after hours, even though it was only to one person, but that person was not the guest of a lodger," said Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, Wanganui, late yesterday afternoon, after hearing lengthy evidence in the case where Ivan Manley, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Wanganui, was charged with selling liquor after hours and two barmen, Ronald Francis Newport and Donald Anderson, were each charged with supplying liquor after hours. A line of £lO, t.he minimum under the Licensing Emergency Regulations, 1942, was imposed in each case. The magistrate commented that this conviction was not a reflection on the licensee, who was actually absent from Wanganui on holiday when the offences were committed. "It is to be regretted that his servants have put him in this position, but if he takes a sensible view of the case he will appreciate that his servants have let him down,” the magistrate added. There were suggestions of behaviour in the hotel that night which the licensee would not have countenanced had he been present. “I am satisfied that he would not have tolerated them, and I shall be glad to make representations on his behalf that he was absent from the hotel," the magistrate added. The licensee and his two barmen pleaded not guiity, the defence being conducted by Mr. C. F. Treadwell, while Senior-Sergeant F. Culloty prosecuted. Five men found on the premises, charged with being unlawfully in the hotel after hours, also pleaded not guilty. The charges against three of them were dismissed, but the other 'two were convicted. A fine of £2, costs 10s, was imposed in each case. One of the men, however, was fined an additional £2, with costs 10s, for giving a false name and address to the police. Reviewing the case, the magistrate said that it had been very fully presented. The evidence of Constable. R. F. Burgess was given in a model fashion with restraint and a moderate willingness to concede any point that might be made for the defence. “He did not strain for a conviction, but presented his evidence as well as that of any constable heard in this Court," the magistrate added. The evidence against the two barmen was different, but it was clearcut. Eight or nine people, three of them women, were in the annexe of the hotel when the constable arrived, but only one of the women had a glass beside her; There were different sets of circumstances and some of the people were guests of a lodger, but others could not be held as such. The young woman with the drink beside her had obviously been supplied by Newport, and the magistrate said he suspected that others had been as well. There was strong suspicion of this, but on the evidence it would be dangerous to convict. The magistrate added that he also believed the constable when he said that two women were at the far end of the bar when he arrived, but left immediately by a side door. It was most unlikely that the constable would invent this evidence against the barman Anderson when he had so much other evidence. CONSTABLE’S EVIDENCE Constable R. F. Burgess said in evidence that on the night of March 22 he was on cycle patrol duty and at 10.40 was in the vicinity of the Masonic Hotel. His attention was attracted by a light in the bar, clearly visible from the roadway, and some noise was coming from the premises. Witness entered the hotel through a side door off the yard and went into small room adjoining the bar after opening a door. Nine people were in the room, including three women. Two men were behind the bar. No glasses were in the room, but glasses were on the bar counter. Some contained dregs and beer and some were empty. Both barmen were engaged in filling glasses from bottles of beer. The first person he spoke to, said witness, was Newport, who was asked to prpduce the order book showing which guests had been supplied with liquor. Newport replied, however, that he could not produce the book because it was full and had not been renewed. Witness said that he started to take the names of all persons present, but of the nine in the room only one of them was a lodger. One man gave a fictitious name and another had not been traced. A man questioned gave no reason for being on licensed premises, but said the constable had “broken up the happy party.” Anderson made a hasty exit from the bar and was not present when the names were being taken. Two men standing at the far end of the bat escaped before they could be questioned. When spoken to 20 minutes latei Anderson said he had supplied liquor to persons in the lounge of the hotel, said witness. CYCLE PATROL Cross-examined by Mr. Treadwell, witness said the constable on cycle patrol had no set beat. Before entering the hotel he waited outside for live minutes, but did not see anybody enter or leave. One barman said no liquor had been supplied and a lodger named Wilmshurst said the other persons were his guests. The temporary manager of the hotel, McGlone, said that the two barmen had authority to serve guests only. A young woman said she went to the hotel after being asked to accompany a young man there on business. Four or five persons were in the room when they arrived, but she did not know any of them. She was given a glass of liquor and consumed some of it. After further evidence had been heard for the prosecution, Mr. Treadwell submitted that when these alleged offences were committed McGlone was acting manager in the licensee’s absence The latter was greatly concerned because since he had taken over the hotel he had a clean record, with no convictions. A conviction would be a slur on his record. The Magistrate: How could it be when he was absent at the time? These matters are always made clear. All persons found in the small room, or annexe, were actually in the hoi el for some specific business. They had called to see Wilmshurst or another lodger. The licensee, Ivan Thomas Manley, said that at the time of the alleged cffences he was absent from Wanganui. The constable had said that he saw two men leave the far end of the bar. but. it was impossible to see that, far without standing in the doorway between the small room and the bar. CLEANING LP BAR Anderson said in evidence lhal on the in question he was employed

as a barman. With Newport he attended a wedding reception that evening, leturmng to the hotel lai er to; and p ,y rpo ? e of washing out the bar nd cleamng up the glasses. This woik was not done earlier because they went out after their evening meal at the hotel. Wilmhurst was a lodger and while the bar was being cleaned out he came into the small room with some people. The constable arrived about five minutes !. u l '. T he la tter must have been absolutely mistaken” when he sale, A% Saw lwo men at the end of the bar. When the constable appeared witness hurried off to get McGlone, who was serving in the lounge bar. Cross-examined by Senior-Sergeant Culloty, witness denied filling glasses from a bottle when the constable arrived. To the magistrate, witness said that he did not know whether any drinks were served in the small room. Newport said in evidence that Wilmhurst called for drinks when he came in with some people, but did not sign the order book as lie had not been served. Witness said that he did not serve anybody after 6 o’clock. When the constable arrived he (witness) was in the act of tipping out two glasses, part full of liquor, which had been left there since closing time. Percival Horace Wilmhurst said that on March 22 he had a caravan for sale. That night, at his request, some people came to see him about the caravan and they had a couple of drinks in the lounge bar. which witness paid and signed for. Subsequently he wanted to use the telephone and went to the small room off the bar for this purpose. He had finished his conversation when more people arrived to see him about the caravan, but he did not have an opportunity of speaking to them. The constable arrived. Witness added that he had previously called for drinks, but they had not been served. He told the constable that the people in the room were his guests. Frederick Mundell said he had lived in the Masonic Hotel for 20 years. He was in the lounge bar with McGlone when one of the men found on the premises called to see him. Witness signed for the drinks and paid for them.

After hearing further evidence the magistrate said that Wilmhurst had claimed all the people in the annexe as his guests, but the last three to arrive, two young men and the young woman, could not be regarded in this category.