CHARGE AGAINST A PUBLICAN.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 690, 28 May 1903, Page 22

CHARGE AGAINST A PUBLICAN.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Gisborne, on the 15th inst., E. H. Mackey, licensee of the Turanganui Hotel, was charged with breaches of section 155 of the Licensing Act. There were three charges, all arising out of the same circumstances on Sunday, May 10. The charges were : (1) Exposing liquor for sale, (2) opening premises for UJe of liquor, (8) allowing liquor to be consumed during prohibited hours. Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Before the evidence was gone into, Sergeant Siddells, who was present, raised a preliminary point as to whether an alleged admission by Mrs Mackey was evidence against her husband. Mr Jones contended that the evidence was inadmissible, on the grounds (1) that Mrs Mackey being the wife of the defendant, evidence would be inadmissible against her husband without his consent, and that it being repeated by a third party would not render it admissible ; (2) that admissions by agents, although! allowable in civil cases, not so allowed in criminal <-ases. . His Worship reserved the point, and later on decided to admit the evidence. The first witness was Robert Hastie, who stated that lie and a man named Frederick Steele went into the hotel on the Sunday; they found the door of the bar parlour open, but the bar was closed. They tapped on the slide, and asked Mrs Mackey (who was ip the bar) for a drink. She refused to serve them, and they were just going out when they met Sergeant Siddells. Frank Steele gave evidence to the same effect. Detective Nixon deposed that he went into the hotel in company with the Sergeant, He saw a dull light reflected through the bar window, and saw Steele and Hastie come out of the hotel. Sergeant Siddells deposed that he visited the hotel. He heard somebody talking, and was just about to open the bar parlour door, when it was opened, and. Hastie and Steele came out. Witness 1 walked into the room, and saw Mrs Mackey standing just inside the bar. On the slide counter there. were traces of wet glasses or mugs. He spoke to Mrs Mackey, who was agitated, and asked her the meaning of it. She replied that she was only giving them a drink. He said she knew she had no: right to give them a drink, and she replied that she thought they were travellers.

Constable Hancox said he had on the night in question seen Hastie, who was slightly under the influence of liquor. Mr Jones quoted several legal authorities to show that the circumstances did not warrant a conviction, and His Worship reserved judgment until the . other cases were heard. The case of opening for sale of liquor was then called, Mr Jones defending, and pleading not guilty. The evidence was similar to that in the first case, excepting that in the latter Mr Mackey was called for the defence, and deposed that the bar parlour referred to was used on Sundays as a smoking-room. He had been ill in bed that day, under the doctor’s care. Mrs Mackey had been with him all evening until she went down to get him some supper. He gave her the key of the bar, and asked her to. get him a bottle of soda water' for a milk and soda drink. She was not authorised to open the bar for any other purpose. She returned with the supper, and he personally knew nothing of the circumstances. Judgment was reserved until next morning at eleven. The police withdrew the third case. Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., delivered judgment on the following day. His Worship said -.—After looking over the evidence and considering all the circumstances of this case and the authorities quoted, I have come to the conclusion that there is sufficient to warrant me in entering a conviction upon each of the charges. One would have thought that the recent move in the direction of prohibition that publicans would have been particularly careful in the observance of the licensing laws, but I regret to find that it is not so, as this is the second case of conviction for Sunday trading within a short period; and I am satisfied that it is carried onto a considerable extent in this town. I have no doubt that any person knowing the run of the ropes can obtain liquor from publicans on Sundays with very little difficulty. It is an offence which is most difficult of detection, and that being so, when a charge is proved before me I intend to make the penalty substantial. In this, as in most cases of the kind, there has been the usual amount of false swearing. I have no doubt whatever that the witnesses Hastie and Steele were served with liquor by defendant’s wife, although they swore positively that they were not. In the first case—that of exposure—defendant will be fined £lO. The conviction will be endorsed on the license. Defendant is also convicted of the second offence—keeping open premises for

the sale of liquor—and is fined £5 and costs. I shall exercise the discretion given me by the Licensing Act by recording only one conviction upon the license. I am empowered to do so by section 203. Mr R. N. Jones, who appeared for the defendant, asked that the fine in the second case be increased by is; so that it could be appealed on. His Worship agreed to do so. Mr Jones then gave notice of appeal. He said it was not necessary to give notice, but he did so to prevent the license being endorsed in the meantime. He intended proceeding on two grounds, to seek to quash the cases on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and that certain evidence was inadmissable.