Good Will Towards Men

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume V, Issue 1234, 26 January 1905, Page 3

Good Will Towards Men

Biy < \ - litoresting Sequel at Waihi Police Court \ I j: • Shortly after the Magistrate's Oourtrev aamed its sitting at 7.30 last night, an inand important oase under tho nejy Lioensing Aot was heard by Mr. R. fa, Bush, B.M. The case was one in ■ T. 1 , 'whtoh'Riohard hpratt anl Harold Lewis .were ohar»ed, on the information of Set (geaiit Sheehan, with being on lioensed ■i ;,-' -premises during prohibit d hours The charge was laid under oUuse 42 of the •Lioensing Aot of last session, viz.: . i ''Every person fouud on licensed premises ■ atany time.when suoh premises are re ■quired by the Licensing Aots to be oloßed is liable to a fiin> not exceeding two pounds, - unless he satisfies the Court that ho was 'an inmate, servant, or lodger on such premises, or a bona fide traveller, or that his presenoe on such premises was not in breach of pro visions of the Licensing Acts • H with respect to the dosing of licensed ./•/premises." : Sergeant Sheehan, in opening the case ' a«i His Worship was aware, there • • r lhad ibeen a lot of oritioism on this parv'< tlcijlSiC ilauseof theAot. The law was on v the&Wte book and it was the duty of tho polufe.to.'admiuister it, That was his sole objeot infringing the case before him. A 1 r . littleJ»foi;e one o'clock he and Constable ■ > : MoGuinnees saw three young- men walk . . into the Central Hotel. They were all \ well known and respected. They entered • ''\vv>:.thVhotdin<ahnnied maimer. He (tho sergeant) entered the premises and inquired from Mr Power, junior, and jhreo other ; members of the family if they had seen the 4 . three young men. The replies were to the . :, effect that thoy had not seen any thing of the . , young men in question. Unable to ascertain any information from tho members of ; the family, be proceeded upstairs, and lioked jnto ;Bome of the bedrooms, until he .happened upon a bedroom,' where he . found the men he had «e»n enter the hotel (Sprattj Lewis, and Barber). They were seated on a bed. 1 He knew that both Hr , Bpratt and Lewid did not live in tho K ' Central Hotel In reply to a question as Hfev vto .what they W6re doing there, they replied ■j§- ■ that they had been invited to thehotel to ' idinber. Their replies were given courtein the hotel was-a breach of the Lioensing Jaokson, who appeared for the de- , proceeded to oxamine the Ser- > In reply to questions hestatod manner of the reception he had " got by the landlord and members of the family, and the replies,ho had reoeived to • :y.'questions made by him in respect of the whereabouts of the three young men he HF < seen,; enter the hotel, made V -made him feetjiiispicioug as to the legality ■ of the preseiiceiof defendants in licensed Si premisesvHrathe Serjeant); had been ' told'by the landlord, and other members r oi (be family, each in turn, that they had K ' \iot seen either of the defendants, and that Kf ■ they knew nothing ef their whereabouts, ' One member of <he family at least must Wt iVhwoSedn thflimen he was enquiring for, - ' beoause'ft moment or two alter the defendants and Berber .had entered the premises ' witness saw 'Bert Power with his head out of a window near .the main entrance . .' looking up tbe'street in the vicinity where ' he and Constable Mctiuinness were. .MoGtuinness deposed that he was in oompany with Sergeant Sheehan. He saw. tLe defendants enter the hotel, and in 1 following them into the premises the'first person was Bert Power. 'Prior to entering Power had been looking out of the window. Bert <'Power and other members of the family •-' whence and Sergeant Sheehan entered 'appeared to be waiting fer them. One of '. the member's of the Power family appeared . . veryexoitedi to know if he •:(witness) had a search warrant. He made ' :"B corroborative stptement as to finding the , ; two defendants and Barber in a bedroom. . ' upstairs. ; This olosed the evidence for the prose- \ ' cotton. 1 Sergeant Bheehan, produced Stone's V Manual, and quoted two cases of breaobes . . of the Licensing Act, in which decisions had been , given. To these oases he - . . to draw the attention of the Magistrate, , .r, vMr Jaokson, in support of his contention jluMkvthat no breach of the Licensing Act bad committed by defendants, said that th<> By ' : Sergeant had practically admitted that if R/ , the men had gone down at Barber's inyiW Ution to the Central Hotel for dinner, no f brtflch of the Aot had been made. Their ';. presence ,on the preuiites, be would say . emphatically, was not a broach of the . Lioensing Aot-The police had made more fuss over the oase than the facta warranted. iLf'. ;• The Sergeant might have taken Barber's : - word bb to that gentleman's state- . ment that he had invited his two friends < dine with him at the hotel. This " : statement was verified by Mr Spralt. He ■ would bring more witnesses that his Wor ship ini(jht|think the case warranted. He iWOuld 1 produce evidence to show that on the day in question only two people had dinner in Meyer's Hotel, one of whom . was Mr Ctaufurd Brown, who got his dinMm. . ner by special arrangement, and the other K. waaa visitor from 'Waitekanri, and his. K" meal consisted of sardines and pineapple. The reason . why no dinner in the hotel that' day H| ; : was because all inmates,of the establishB ment had gone to the beach, Mr Lewip' B' position in'regard to the household arB raigementson that day, was the same. B.' ; Harold Lewie, examined, stated that on Btx , thelnorning in question he and, Mr. Sprat! were together. As tbero waß noithing in : the shape of a Christmas dinner to be had in his. pi ace of abode, everybody being B away,. they decided to go for'%t 8,. meal to Meyers' Hotel. On. their K! way to the hotel they met Mr Barber, who ' gave them an an invitation to dine at tho Hj f v Central Hotel, which they accepted, On ' arriving el the denial thoy did hot make :a hurried entrance. They at once pro- -, thf police entered the room, The ocoupante pf the room offered no/intentional obstruction to the police coming in, By presence in the hotel he had no in* tention of contravening the law. Crosß examined by Sergeant Sheehan: He went up to the bed-room to wash his hands, No doubt there were places where . one might wash his hands without going to a bed-room. Witness could not say whether Barber had told him that the , room they were in was his (Barber's). He ; wes going to Mjyer's hotel for dinner, but on his way be and Spratt mot Barber, who invited them to dinner at the Central Hotel. Bicbard Spratt gave corroborative evi- ' denc c 'h ta spending .the morning in the corner, v i'f .the previous witness, and - meeting B.trber and being invited by tha, gentleman to dinner at the Central Hotelt ' Jn the passage upstairs there was a commotion caused by opening and closing of doors and some argument by people in the He understood at the time that they were in wns Mr Barbor's. learned since that it was not his but that, be had the use of it while owner v(as on their entering the bedroom, witness said he had cpme to dine at the hotel It the'invitatiori'of Mr Barber. ™. Cross-exarained: He would not swear . that Barber bad stated that the bsdroom . ' was his. The commotion referred to was "caused by the olosing and slamming of ' doors, and exqited talk, in the passage,. He had heard afterwards that the oommo- ■ tion wafl caused by an argument between .: the police and the landlord. His inform--'••(int,bad been Barber.

Asked as to Low Birber would know what hud taken pi ice in the passage,. witness suggested that the Sergeant should ask Mr barber him-df, ■ Witnosshero made Borne comment on the difference between the licensing law? of the Old Country and the colony, whereupon the Sergeant wanted to know his authority for such comments and naked other questions. In the course of which witness wanted to know what they had to do with the case, His Worship remarked that witness was responsibl ■ as ho himself had takeu them over to England, Franois Barber, examined, deposed 10 having met Sprutt and Lewi'*, and having invited them to dinner at the Central Hotel,stating that a real Christinas dinner had been prepared at the hotel He did not tell the Sergeant that the room was his. He had not been asked the question, by the Sergeant. Maurice Gilbert Power, oxamined, said he did not see the defend mts enter the hotel. He was asleep when the polico came in; their entrance awakened him He considered the policg were exceeding their duty in opening doors of bedrooms of the boarders of the hotels, H'* (witness) was natupl.y upset and excited 4 the action of the police. Cross-examined: If the sergeant said that he (witness) was looking out of thii hotel window the sergeant, would be tailing an untruth. He had been told that ihe action of the polico thai day had been actuated by ill will against the landlord of the hotel, and not to get a conviotion against the defendants. Tne strongest expression he used on the occasion was that the action of the police was one of impertinenoe 'and ignorance.

W. Craufurd-Brown, and H. E. Meyer, licensee of the hotel gave evidence to the 'effect that, only one dinner was Served in the hotel that day, tho dinner in question being, served to the witness, CraufurdBrown. *

His' Worship, i|i summing up, said that the decisiojs given in licensing cises under the new Act did not all ouricide with one another, and until thegauostion had been decided by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal the matter would not be set at rest. If the men ivere on the premises that was no reason <vhy they should net have come out of the room. They remained in the room while a commotion was going on in tho passage out' side, nnd if they hid corno out there would have been a end'of the trouble. He was inclined to think that they had to thank themselves'for the position they had found themselves in. He intended looking at it in a common sense light, and; looking at it in that light, he did not think that sny breach of the Act had beon committed. Tho onns of satisfying tha Court that, the defendants were illegally on the premises rested with the police, It had not been proved that the young men had committed |any breach of the Aot, and he would dismiss the case,