THAT “PROHIBITED” PERSON.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1022, 7 October 1909, Page 21

THAT “PROHIBITED” PERSON.

ANOTHER COURT CASE.

At the Auckland Police Court on Saturday, before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., William Denham, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, was charged, with having sold liquor to one William Gray, knowing him to be a prohibited per.son; that, knowing William Gray to be a prohibited person, he did permit him to remain on the premises; that he did permit drunkenness to take place •on his premises; and that he did sell liquor to one William Gray, a person in a state of intoxication.- A barmaid from the same hotel, named Maud Dunfy, was also charged with having served William Gray with liquor. The defendants were represented by Mr. F. Earl.

Sub-Inspector Hendrey, in opening the case, said that on September 3 the police visited the Victoria Hotel, and found a man whose name turned out to be Gray in the bar, and they knew him to be a prohibited person. The attention of the two girls in the bar was called to the fact that the man whom they had been serving was prohibited, and the man, when asked his name, gave it as “ Anderson.” The record of prohibited persons was searched, and the name of Anderson did not appear. However, the next day, in the afternoon, a police officer, while standing in Victoria Street, saw the man who had given his name as Anderson going irto the hotel in an intoxicated condition. The constable waited for a sergeant to come along, and they both went to the hotel. The man Gray was hopelessly drunk. The licensee was not there, and when one of the girls in the bar was spoken to about serving Gray she said, “ I did not serve him; it was her,” pointing to Miss Dunfy. Later on the police again went to the place and found that the licensee was still away, and the two girls were left there to manage a crowd of men who were in the bar.

Sergeant Rowell gave evidence as to having visited the bar of the Victoria Hotel and finding Gray there. The following day witness went to the Victoria Hotel and found Gray there again. There were a number of men in the bar who were under the Influence of liquor. Mr. Earl: I object to that. Being under the influence of liquor is not an offence. Every man who has a whisky

and soda is—more or lessI—under 1 —under the influence of liquor.

His Worship: Is it not, Mr. Earl, one of the surrounding facts which should be laid before the Court? Mr. Earl: Of course, Your Worship has a wide discretion as to the admittance of evidence, but this seems unnecessary embroidery. His Worship: It may be unnecessary to labour such facts, but there may be an object in bringing them out. I cannot stop it.

Witness, continuing his evidence, said that Gray was drunk, and that in answer to witness’ inquiry he said he had had a glass of beer. Mr. Earl objected. What Gray said to the constable was not evidence against his clients; it might be evidence against Miss Dunfy if she heard it.

Witness, continuing, said that Gray was arrested for drunkenness and taken away. Witness went back and saw the defendant barmaid, who denied having served the man with liquor. Miss Stringer, the other barmaid, said that she did not serve Gray, and she said, ‘‘l told her (indicating Miss Dunfy) not to.” Gray was subsequently brought before the Court and convicted of drunkenness and with having broken the terms of his prohibition order. After some further evidence had been given, the case was adjourned till a future date.