THE TRADE AND “TRAVELLERS.”

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 715, 19 November 1903, Page 26

THE TRADE AND “TRAVELLERS.”

AN IMPORTANT DECISION

A case against H. J. Syms, licensee of the Epsom’ Hotel, in which he was charged with supplying a man named William Beadle with liquor on Sunday, October 18, was heard at the Auckland Police Court last week, but notice was withheld from these columns until judgment was given. Defendant was also charged with exposing liquor for sale, etc. On Thursday Mr Brabant made known his decision. His Worship said that the facts proved that Beadle was an infirm old man, living at the Costley Home for the Aged Poor at Epsom, which is the greater part of a mile distant from defendant’s hotel. On the morning of October 18 it appeared that Beadle had visited defendant's hotel, and was supplied by defendant with beer, for which he paid 4d. Constable McLennan putting in an appearance while Beadle was drinking the beer, defendant informed him that he had supplied the liquor on account of Beadle’s representation that he was a bona-fide traveller. Beadle was not a bona-fide traveller, having slept the previous night at the Costley Home. The defence raised was under section 157 of the Licensing Act, 1881, that the defendant truly believed Beadle to be a traveller, and took all reasonable precautions to ascertain whether he was such. It was not easy to decide upon the evidence what questions’ were put. Beadle’s evidence was not satisfactory, as he contradicted himself more than once. His account of what took place did not agree with that of defendant, whose evi-

dence in turn did not agree with what he said to the constable. All His Worship could say was that Beadle did represent himself to be a traveller, but it subsequently appeared that he was not. If defendant could have satisfied His Worship that he trully believed the man to be a traveller, and, further, that he took all reasonable precautions to ascertain the fact, he would have dismissed the case on those grounds. But His Worship was not so satisfied on the evidence. The defendant must have known that the Costley Home was within a short distance of his house, and that fact should have been remembered by him in that Beadle was a very infirm old man, as instanced on Tuesday last, when he had to be assisted into the witness-box. It was so improbable that a hotelkeeper could have believed him to be a bona-fide traveller that His Worship could not believe defendant’s story. If, as defendant had said, that he did not notice what the man was like, as he was in a dark passage,then His Worship was of opinion that Syms did not take reasonable precautions to ascertain if the man was a traveller. His Worship’s decision was in accordance with the principles laid down in a number of cases which he had read. The defendant was not oblig-od to supply the drink on Sunday, but. chose to take the risk. He should have exercised more caution. He would be convicted on the principal charge of supplying liquor during prohibited hours to a person who was not a lodger or a bona-fide traveller, and fined £2 and costs (£2 Is). His Worship understood that if defendant ‘was convicted on the main charge the prosecution would be satisfied. Mr Tole (Crown Prosecutor) said that that was so. His Worship then said that the other informations would be dismissed. His Wole : An endorsement will follow, Your Worship ? His Worship : Yes ; in the ordinary wav.

Prosecuted for allowing gaming on his premises, a Dublin publican set up the defence that he was an adjudicated bankrupt, and an order had been made vesting the property in the official assignee, he was not within the law a licensed person. In mercy to the creditors, a fine of 40s only was inflicted, and it was> decided that the license should not be endorsed.