THE LICENSING LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2436, 26 February 1909, Page 6

THE LICENSING LAW.

A CONVICTION QUASHED

A SPITEFUL AVITNESS

[Press Association.]

AUCKLAND, Feb. 25. A conviction recorded last month by Mr R. AV. Dyer, S.M., against Harriet Dingle., licensee of the'Railway hotel, Drury, on a charge of Sunday trading, formed the subject of an appeal under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, before Mr Justice Edwards, at the Supremo Court .yesterday. The Crown Solicitor (Hon. J. A. Tole, Iv.C.), detailed the circumstances which led to the prosecutioig and resulted in a conviction, and endorsement of the license in the lower Court. He said that a farmer named Henry Tooman visited the hotel on the evening of Sunday, November 29, in search of his brother, who was boarding there. On arival ho entered a private room ill which his brother and another boarder. Drinks were called for but the landlady demurred; at serving Henry Tooman, remarking that the other two could have refreshments as they were boarders. After some persuasion, however, she brou gilt in drinks . for all three, which were paid for,- and several hounds were consumed during, the evening:' Henry: Tooman gave evidence which bore out these, facts, and he further stated: that his action in informing the police of. what had occurred was prompted by high words which had ensued between himself and Mrs Dingle. The appellant characterised the previous witness’s evidence concerning the sale of drink on the Sunday. in question as .a tissue of falsehoods, and stated that spite had caused him. to act as -informant to the police. Alexander "Patterson, a drover, deposed that ho •- - -,V•• • . -V ..V-'' - ' • '*. .....

was in the hotel on the evening in question, hut did not witness the. sale of any'drink. His Honor remarked that-.tlie evidence of the witness Tooman was characterised by in tense, spite against Mrs Dingle and there, was not the slightest doubt that this had given rise to the prosecution. He was quite sure any jury who fluid heard the . evidence would havo desired to go no further. The case would-havc required to be a very strong one indeed to allow it to.affect the. value of the property concerned, and ho had no hesitation in allowing the appeal.