LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 499, 15 February 1900, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

At the Auckland Police Court last week, be fore Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M., Alfred Pickrell, licensee of the Ellerslie Hotel, was charged with selling liquor on Sunday, the 14th ult., to a person who was not a bona fide traveller, or lodger, seeking refreshment. —Mr J. A. Tole (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the prosecution, and Mr J. R. Reed appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.- Robert Dunn, labourer, living in Orakei Road, Remuera, said that on the 14th ult. he went to Onehunga and Panmure, and on returning home he called at the Ellerslie Hotel with his brother. On entering there were two men at the side bar (which was open) engaged in conversation with Mrs Pickrell. ness called for two half pints of beer, for which he paid sixpence. Mrs Pickrell inquired if ness was a traveller, and he answered in the affirmative, and said that he had been to Onehunga and Panmure, and was entitled to be served. Mrs Pickrell asked witness where he lived, and he answered “ miles away, over there, towards Orakei Bridge. ’’ During the conversation Constable Sherman entered. Witness said to the constable, “I’m a travellerand the constable laughingly replied, “ You’re all travellers.” Witness had slept at home the previous night. Cross-examined, witness said he left home at eight o’clock that morning, and left Panmure about seven p.m. to return to his house, which he believed to be fully three miles from the Ellerslie Hotel—William Dunn, of Panmure, brother of the previous witness, also gave evidence, and said he did not listen to the conversation between Mrs Pickrell and his brother, and was not asked any questions by her.—A witness from the Survey Department proved that the Dunns lived within three miles of the hotel.—Constable Sherman deposed to entering the hotel on the night in question. As soon as the licensee’s wife saw him she removed the pewter-pots from the ledge. Asked why the men had been served, she said, “ Are they not travellers?” Witness said he would report the occurrence.—Mr Reed submitted that Mre Pickrell had taken reasonable precautions, and fully believed Dunn to be a traveller, and the case should be dismissed.—Emma Pickrell, wife of the licensee, taid that she opened the bar at half-past eight p.m. on the night in question and served several travellers who had arrived in a waggonette. Whilst serving them the two Dunns entered and demanded drinks. "Witness asked Robert Dunn if i hey were travellers, and he answered that they were, and had come from Onehunga, and on being further interrogated said they “were still living in the same place.” Witness said she had always understood the Dunns resided at Tamaki. Witness asked the men if they had slept at home on the previous night, and was answered in the affirmative. —— His Worship said it was admitted the liquor was sold to Robert Dunn, and it had been proved that Dunn was not a bona fide traveller within the meaning of the Licensing Act. .The question was whether the case was entitled to be dismissed under section 157 of the Act, on the ground that Mrs Pickrell believed that Dunn was a bona fide traveller, and had taken all the necessary precautions required by the Act. He thought the evidence of Mrs Pickrell had been given in a very straightforward manner, and no doubt she really believed Dunn to be a bona fide traveller, and the question arose as to what reasonable precautions had been taken. Mrs Pickrell had acted to a great extent on her own knowledge of the men, and merely asked if they lived in the same place. . Under the circumstances, Mrs Pickrell was justified in believing that Dunn was a traveller, as he had once lived at Tamaki, and told her he was still residing in the same place. He thought that under the circumstances she was justified in supplying the men, and therefore the licensee could not be convicted of any offence, and the case would be dismissed.

Matthew Leonard, the wharf labourer, who was accused of stealing five bottles of schnapps from the Elingamite, evidently desired to lay in a stock of spirits against a rainy day —we should say, a drought. The case came up before the Stipendiary Magistrate (H. W. Brabant) on Saturday last. Accused, who had been sorting goods from the Elingamite in the shed on Hobson Street Wharf, was seen by Constable Maher carrying a bag over his shoulder. The constable accosted him and. asked to see what was in the bag. According to the constable’s evidence, the man said it was beer, and when Constable Maher opened the bag to see the accused struck him in the mouth and ran away. The policeman gave chase, and after a scuffle handcuffed him and took him to the station. The policeman was obliged to use his baton in affecting the arrest. The bag was found to contain five bottles of spirits, and evidence was call< d to show that bottles had been missed from the Elingamite. The accused, in defence, said he picked the bag up outside Smith and Caughey’s, and that while he was carrying it home he was waylaid and assaulted by the constable. His Worship said the policeman’s evidence was given straightforwardly, and there was no reason to disbelieve it; while that of the accused was not given in such a way as to carry conviction. The accused’s story was a grossly improbable one, and His Worship thought he was justified in convicting bn both charges. Sentence was deferred pending the probation officer’s report as to accused’s character.