SLY-GROG SELLING.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 831, 8 February 1906, Page 26

SLY-GROG SELLING.

At the City Police Court W iliam Clark and Edwd. Barrett were charged ou three separate informations (January 20th, 21st. and 22nd) with selling beer without be ng licensed so to do. Sub-Inspector O’Donovan conducted the case for the police, and Mr. Wl’ford defended the accused. The Sub-Inspector said defendants were partners in a restaurant business, known as the Strand Cafe, s tuated on Lambton Quay, near Martin’s Fountain. They had been in possession of the p ace for some months. The police had been in possession of nformation that drink had been sold for a considerable time, and steps were taken to ascertain whether the information was correct. In the event of a conviction he won d ask for the nfliction of a severe penalty for each offence. The offence was aggravated by the fact that it was not on y a case of selling liquor without a license, but the sales had taken p ace after 10 o’clock at night, when the 10 o’clock 1 censing arrangements for hotels was on trial.

Charles Le Fevre, probationary constable, said chat on Friday, January 19th, he and two other probationers went to the Strand Cafe at 10.15 p.m. A waitress showed them to a room, and they had supper. Before they went away they saw soma men ’n another room drinking beer. The fo’lowing night his party returned at half-past 10. The same waitress showed thorn into a stall. After they had g ven their orders for supper, they were asked what they would like to drink. Witness said ho would like a glass of beer if he cou d get it. The wa tress said he could have that if he paid Is 6d extra. Tho waitress went to a window and called, “ One on.” A bott’e of beer was then brought, and witness and his companions drank its contents. On go■ng, witness asked whether they could take a bottle of beer away with them. The waitress replied in the affirmative, and brought a bottle of beer, which was paid for by Keane, one of the probationers who accompanied witness. This bottle was in possession of the polios now. Witness saw C’ark, but did not see Barrett. Witness went to the premises again, when a search warrant was executed. Two dozen full bottles of beer were seized. Mr. Wilford cross examined ths witness at length concerning his reason for going to the cafe, with the object of showing that it was with the intention of procuring liquor after hours. Witness admitted they wanted to get beer if they coud, but there was no intention to endeavour to make defendants sell the beer. Witness had asked the waitress to “ join” the party, but she had refused. Mr. Wi ford asked questions concerning witness “making love” to the maid; but he only admitted asking the girl what night she was off. Joseph Keane, probationer, said he went to the cafe under instructions. He remembered the previous witness asking the waitress to make an appointment. Witness did not' see Barrett. William Char’es Waugh, probationer, and Sergeant Rutledge tlso gave evidence. The latter said he executed the search warrant, and found a num-

her of bottles of beer and seventy-four empty bottles on the premises Mr. Wilford: Inside or outside?

Dr. McArthur: They were empty inside, I think! (laughter.) Continuing, Sergeant Rut edge said Clark had wanted to know whether he was allowed to keep a couple of ga lons of bear on the premises for his own use. Witness had paid for and procured beer whi’e in the shop. Air. Wilford: Do you know there Is not one restaurant in town where you can’t get a bottle of beer before 10 o’clock by paying in advance. Sergeant Rutledge: I know there are places which won’t send out for liquor. the defence. Mr. Wi ford, for the defence, said that on the night in question Clark had no knowledge that these particular people received liquor. Evidence would be tendered to show that on some nights a “ runner” emp’oyed at the restaurant went over to a hotel as many as a dozen times to procure liquor for customers. There was nothing in the Licensing Act to prevent a restaurant-keeper saying to a customer, who asked for beer, “ Give me your shilling and I will buy it for you.” This practice was largely indulged in in Wellington, and was a method of keeping custom. These three men went into defendants’ restaurant for the purpose of making them break the law. He was not saying anything of the ethics of the matter. When the detectives got there, they saw a young girl, and in order to be more successful one of the men began making love with the maid. It was no offence against accused if the girl took a bottle of beer from one of the defendants’ private rooms; took money for it and did not hand tht money over to her employers. He then proceeded to ca 1 evidence. Vioet Paton, waitress, said she had been employed by the Strand Safe for about a fornight. She remembered Le Fevre calling with some other men. He said he was from Rotorua. He asked her to make an appointment. If anybody called for liquor before 10 o’clock a man employed in the house was sent across to a hotel for it. She was no; a lowed to take orders after 10 o’clock. She told de-

fendants that she wou’d get them beer “if they would not tell the boss.” She went to Mr. Clark’s room for it; but he did not know witness had taken it till the next day, when he was making up his books. He - then asked her how much she had charged for it. On her rep ying Is 6d he said: “ You had better keep it, but do not go to my room again’” James Carlyle, pantryman, gave evidence as to his running messages to a hotel for beer,, etc. for customers DR. MCARTHUR’S REMARKS. Dr. McArthur said he did not beieve the story of the waitress. Defendants would ba each fined, £25 costs 3s 6d. Mr. Wi ford asked whether His Worship would make a pronouncement in reference to liquor which would be a guide to othei- restaurant-keepers. Dr. McArthur said they would hava to learn for themselves. For his part if any Liquor was kept on the premises he would consider it kept there for sale. Mr. Wilford then mentioned the heavy penalty inflicted. Would ’dhay be given time to pay ?

His Worship said one ferson had escaped. and in another case where this was done he did not think the fine had yet been paid. This was a worse case. Tt was not only selling without a license, but the offence was committed after hours. Mr. Wilford: If these men had £lO,OOO they would not be asked to pay more than ££so. Dr. McArthur replied that he was sorry that wilful perjury was committed in these cases. Magistrates coud not have given their evidence better than the three men for the prosecution. But a young girl had gone into the box and declared what he believed to be absolutely untrue. She knew she was not tel’ing the truth.

Sub-Inspector O’Donovan: All the more disgrace on defendants for the girl be’ng put in the position she is. It would be better for the hotels to be open than ths sort of thing take p’ace.

Mr. Wilford made an appeal for the girl. He said the evidence she had given was exactly similar to what she had told hm at his office some days ago.

Dr. McArthur : I wi l ! not retract a single word. She was not speaking the truth. In reference to the other two charges (to which the defendants pleaded guilty) he did not wish to be vindictive, and wou’d inflict costs only (these amounted to 245). Mr. Wilford: My clients have not the money. Dr. McArthur: Well, they wil’ have to go to gaol. Mr. Wiford: They have only got the goodwi’l, for which they gave £BO. Dr. McArthui’ raised objections to letting the men go unless someone went security for them. Mr. Wilford said his clients would be ruined. Mr. O’Donovan said he had no recommendation to make.

Mr. Wiford: Will Your Worship give them a day or two to sell out. Dr. McArthur: They may out. This closed the case.—“ New Zealand Times.”