A LICENSING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3215, 10 May 1911, Page 2

A LICENSING CASE.

FAILING TO ADMIT POLICE

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.!

WELLINGTON, May 9

At the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., Thomas Palmer, licensee of the Princess Theatre Hotel, was charged with failing to admit the police to his premises on the evening of the 21st April last. Sub-Inspector Sheehan prosecuted, and 1 Mr. A. Gray appeared .for defendant. Sergeant McGrorie stated that at 10.20 p.m. on the date in question he noticed a light in the private bar of the Princess Theatre hotel, and also heard the jingling of glasses. He knocked at the door, and a hoy called out from inside, “Who is there?” Witness replied, “Police—open the door at once.” There, was no response to this demand, hut witness heard people hurriedly moving about inside. Witness continued to knock at the door, and eventually a man asked who was there. Witness ~ again said, “Police—-open the door at once,” hut the only reply was, “Oh, we’ve heard that tale before.” Subsequently witness went to the hack of the hotel, wliere he saw the licensee, whoj on being ased why the police had not been admitted, stated lie was upstairs in a lavatory at the time. Being admitted to the hotel, witness saw no signs of a breach of the licensing laws. Constable Shaw’s evidence was corroborative. John McKinnon, barman at the hotel, stated that he heard the knocking, hut did not open the door, as he thought it was only an excuse on the part of a man who was after a drink. People often tried to get into the hotel on this excuse. There were two hoarders in the bar at the time. Thomas Palmer, licensee, stated that he was in the lavatory upstairs when the police called. He admitted the sergeant as soon as possible after hearing he was outside. His Worship said that a conviction must he entered. Although it was impossible for the licensee to open the door, his representative, the barman, should have done so. There was no evidence that persons had been unlawfully on the premises for the purpose of drinking, and the penalty would only he a nominal one. Defendant was fined 10s., with costs 75., with the alternative of 24 hours’ imorisonment.