H.—2

152

149. I suppose yoti are very clear about this constable going in in 1893 ?—Yes, absolutely certain. 150. It is the sort of thing you would take more notice of than an ordinary individual going in ?—Yes. 151. What you suggest is that Mr. Nicol may have seen a constable go in in 1894 and you might not ?—Whose hotel ? 152. In 1894 what hotel were you watohing?—All three in 1894. 153. Did you see a constable go in any hotel that day?— No. 154. If one had gone in you would have seen him ?—Yes. 155. If Nicol says one did go in, a little before 11 o'clock in the morning, Nicol would be incorrect ?—Well, I would not like to say. 156. You say that Kylands's Hotel was open from 7.30 till 10.30 in the morning in 1894 ?— Yes. 157. And again from 6.30 in the evening?— Yes. 158. You are clear on that point ?—Yes, absolutely certain. 159. Then, if Nicol says the hotel was never opened again after 10.30 o'clock all day, he is not right?—He is wrong, yes. 160. You have given the number as entering Eylands's Hotel as forty-one up to 10.30: can you say how many entered after 6.30 in the evening?— No. 161. Then, forty-one is not the sum total for Eylands's that day?—No, it is up to 6.30. 162. How many entered that hotel from 6.30 till 7.30 in the evening?—l could not say ; I did not take any notes at all. 163. Are you sure the hotel was open? —Yes. 164. And people were going in ? —Yes. 165. And why did you not take notes?—lt was too dark to take notes. 166. Mr. Taylor.] Are you sure your statement in regard to the house opening after 6.30 does not apply to 1893 and not to 1894 ? Will you look at your notes for 1893 as far as Eylands's Hotel is concerned, and tell me what time you took your first note ?—8 o'clock. 167. And what is the time for the last?—l o'clock. 168. Are you sure it was not in 1893 when the house was reopened at 6.30 ? Have you no note after 1 o'clock?— No. 169. This one does not appear to have done any business after 1 o'clock?— No. 170. Mr. Tunbridge.] Do you understand from my cross-examination that Mr. Nicol and yourself do not agree ? —Yes. 171. If you are making a mistake on a point of that description it is very possible you are making a mistake on other points, is it not ? Will you swear you are not making mistakes in other particulars than the particulars I pointed out to you ?—Yes, I will. 172. Only that I drew your attention to those discrepancies in the evidence of Mr. Nicol and your evidence, I suppose you would have been equally confident you could not have been making a mistake in respect to those ?—No. 173. Did you not believe when you gave your evidence in chief yon were stating that which was quite correct ?—Yes. 174. And you were quite prepared to swear it was quite correct at the time you gave it ?—Yes. 175. But, now Mr. Nicol and yourself do not agree, you say you are not quite prepared to say you are right and he is wrong ? —No. 176. The Chairman.] Are the entries in 1893 in your own handwriting ?—Yes. 177. And is the entry about the policeman in your handwriting ?—Yes. 178. The note is, " Two policemen entered, and the man on watch touched the bell and eight men immediately came out, laughing." You mean there were two policemen went in together; not one, now?— Yes. 179. Are these minutes entered accurately at the time ? —Yes. 180. Mr. Tunbridge.] Is there anything on those notes showing that a member of a Licensing Committee entered Eylands's Hotel on that day in 1893?—N0. 181. Mr. Taylor.] You have no,note there ?—No. 182. The Chairman.] Did you keep a note of the three hotels?— No. 183. Which did you keep ?—I kept Eylands's Hotel and the Post Office Hotel. 184. On the same sheet or different sheets ?—On different sheets. 185. Colonel Hzime.] You say in 1894 Eylands's Hotel was closed at 10.30?— Yes. 186. Because the proprietor was away?—-I do not know whether he was away or not; I could not say. 187. Was there any violation of the law in those cases that you have told us of ?—I think so. 188. There was?— Yes. 189. Will you state what it was ?—The law says that no drink is to be sold on Sunday at all. 190. Yes ; but did you see any sold?— Well, I saw persons go into the hotel and come out half drunk, and again I saw people go in with jugs in their kits and come out again. 191. Mr. Taylor.] You saw evidences of trading?— Yes. 192. You simply draw inferences? —Yes. 193. Colonel Hume.] If Mr. Nicol were to say he did not see any people come out under the influence of liquor at all, would he be right or wrong in your opinion? —Wrong. 194. Wrong, and you would be right ?—Yes. 195. Mr. Taylor.] Have you got notes there of people coming out under the influence of liquor ? —Yes. It says, " One drunken man and two or three men fighting on the road." 196. Did Nicol see the same people that you saw ?—I should think so. He ought to have. 197. In fact, the list could not have been compiled in any other way, could it?—Oh, yes. Well, I had the list