LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 478, 21 September 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

An action has been proceeding in the Sydney Equity Court, and judgment has been reserved after hearing argument, in which Tooth and Co., Ltd., the well-known Sydney brewers, are seeking to restrain Samuel Parkes, the licensee of the Stepney Hotel, Raglan and Phillip Streets, Alexandria, from dealing with any other brewers for malt liquors, and to obtain a declaration that the covenant entered into between the Company and the former leesee of the premises is binding upon the defendant and all successive occupiers of the hotel. The circumstances were somewhat complicated, in-so-far as they related to the lease of the site of the hotel in 1862 for a term of ninety years, and the subsequent assigning of the lease to a man named Brierly, who purchased the lease and the hotel with money advanced by Tooth and Co., who in turn took a mortgage over the property, and secured a covenant that Brierly and all successive occupiers of the hotel would deal exclusively with the Company for all beer and other malt liquors to be used at the hotel, so long as it should be licensed as an hotel. In 1888 a - Benjamin Lafiura desired to purchase the hotel, and Tooth and Co. advanced to him the whole of the purchase money on his entering into a mortgage and covenant similar to that given by Brierly. Lafiura died in 1897, and his wiiow carried on the business till May last, when defendant took the business over, and obtained his liquors from other persons. The defence consisted in a plea that the plaintiffs had declined to discharge the mortgage on payment of the moneys due, except on condition that they retained the benefit of the covenant as to exclusive dealing ; that the covenant was not binding on defendant, as it was contained in the assignment of the lease by way of mortgage only, or, if binding, was only binding during the continuance of the mortgage and not after the moneys due had been paid or tendered ; that the insertion of the covenant was void, in that its effect was to make the mortgage irredeemable. The case resolved itself into one of argument on technical law points, and after hearing argument, His Honor, Mr Justice Walker, reserved judgment.

At the Police Court on Friday Eunice Winter, licensee of the Junction Hotel, Epsom, was charged before Mr T. Hutchison. S.M., with selling liquor on August 24th to Walter Henry Williams, at Buckland’s saleyards. Remuera, a place at which she was not authorised by license to sell liquor. A second information charged the defendant with selling liquor at the same time and place t > Henry Lomax. Mr Campbell appeared for the defendant and pleaded guilty. He said it had been the. practice for a great many years past f>r the licensee of the J unction Hotel to provide lunch at the saleyards, and to supply liquor with the lunch. This was the first time the practice had ever been challenged. There had been nothing clandestine or secret about it. The sale of liquor had gone on openly for years, and the defendant was only following the practice of previous licensees. It had been done entirely under a misapprehension. Sub-Inspector Wilson said the facts stated by the defendant’s counsel were correct so far as they went. luiquor was certainly supplied with meals, but there was also a bar erected in the yard where liquor was sold to whoever came along. Two plain clothes constables had been served with drink at the bar. His Worship said it was a question whether the facts stated by Mr Campbell were not an aggravation of the offence. In any case he thought a nominal penalty would not be sufficient. Looking as the gains that he imagined Mrs Winter had made, he considered there ought to bs a substantial penalty. The defendant would be convicted on the first charge and fined £5, the liquor found in the saleyard to be confiscated. The second charge would be dismissed.

On Friday a woman named Mary Dooley was charged with selling liquor, to wit, beer, without having a license to do so. Mr Reed appeared on behalf of the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that on the day in question constables Skinner and Campbell were passing defendant’s house in Wakefield Street, when she invited the constables into her house’ Both constables were off duty, and dressed in plain clothes. The defendant proposed that they should have a game of euchre, and it was arranged that the losing constable should “shout.” Constable Skinner had the defendant for a partner, while his brother constable had a young woman named Mary Walsh for his partner. Constable Skinner and the defendant lost, the former thereupon called for “ drinks,” and the latter produced a large bottle of beer, for which Constable Skinner paid. ss. Sergt. Treanor deposed that the constables acted under his instructions, viz., to go to the defendant’s house to see if she sold liquor. The defendant, the sergeant stated, had been convicted twice before, on the first occasion being fined £5, and on the latter £lO. The defence was that the constables were supplied with ‘ ‘ hop ’ ’ beer, the bottle being manipulated in such a way that it had the appearance of an ordinary bottle of beer. A bottle

was produced in Court by the defenc, and at the request of Mr Reed the constables drank some of the contents, which they pronounced to be “hop beer. They both swore positively that it was not “ hop” beer that they had at defendant’s house. The defendant and the witness, Mary Walsh, gave evidence for the defence. His Worship said he did not think the evidence was sufficiently clear to convict upon, and accordingly dismissed the information.