Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Verdun hotel.
THE raOPBlETOB FINED.
Mr. G. W. Ilalcombc, S.M., presided over tbe
Mount Barker Police Court on Wednesday (Octo
l»er JS*». when ;i licensing case was set down for
bearing. N
Information was laid against Charles Octa
rius Reginald Horse 11, of Verdun, by Perclval
Aldridge Giles, of Adelaide, sub-inspector of
Police, who conducted the prosecution, that,
being a licensed person in respect* of certain li
censed premises known as tbe Stanley Bridge
Hotel, situated at Verdun, did unlawfully sup
ply- liquor on tbe said licensed premises upon
a Sunday, to wit. tbe 17th day of September.
1922, contrary to tbe provisions of tbe Licensiug
Act 1917, Section 185. He was also charged
that heretofore and before tbe commission of
the said last-mentioned ofTeuce, to wit, tbe
second day of June, 1921, at Mount Barker^
he was duly couvlcted by a Court of Summary
Jurisdiction for that on tbe 14th day of May,
1921. at Verdun, in tbe said State, being the
licensee of the Stanley Bridge Hotel, Verdun,
he did unlawfully supply liquor on the said
premises to one William Gomers at a time not
being between tbe hours of five in tbe morning
and six in the evening, to wit, at about nine
o'clock, contrary to the provisions of the Licen
sing Act. In this case defendant had been fined
25 and costs.
M.C.* Smith, of Mount Barker, gave evidence
of service of the summons upon tbe defendant.
Sub-Inspector Giles appeared for ,tbe prosecu
tion and Mr. L, vou Dousa-*represented the de
fendant.
Sheldon Frederick. Brandenberg, mounted con
stable. deposed tbat on Sunday, September 17,
at noon; lie was at the Stanley Bridge Hotel,
Verdun. He entered the premises and went
down the passage a short distance and entered
a room, which was anocupied by any persons
at the time. s He remained there for about
five minutes, wben the licensee came to the
door and said: "Do you want to see me?''
Witness replied, "I have seen your wife and.
ordered dinner." About 12.45 a motor car
pulled up outside "the hotel, and a few seconds
later four women and one man entered .the
room. They sat down, and the man in the
party said to the ladies: "We bad better have
a drink before dinner." One of the ladies,
whom he now knew to be Mrs. Truran, replied,
"WpII, if you are going to have a drink 1 am
having a braudy and soda." A couple of j
minutes later tb£ defendant came to the door |
of- the room and said, "What - are you going j
to have " The man', said, "Brandy and soda." J
v^lrs. Truran said, "Brandy and soda," another I
young lady said "Soda* water," and another j
lady said "Stout." The fourth lady,, as far as]
he could judge, gave no order. Defendant left
the room and returned with a tray containing
glasses. He filled the empty glass with soda j
water and added- soda water to two other glasses |
containing an amber-coloured liquid. A glass j
containing a dark liquid was then banded to •
the young lady who ordered the stout. The {
man of the party then said, "Perhaps the young
fellow would like a drink,'* meaning -witness.
Witness replied, "I don't mind," and turning to
defendant asked, "Have you* any Dewar's whis
ky?" Defendant replied "Yes." Witness said,
"1 will have a Dewar's." -Defendant-shortly re
turned with the drink and handed it to the wit
ness. The man who asked witness to have
drink handed a banknote to the defendant, who
later returned with, change. The drinks were
consumed and the defendant picked up the empty
glasses and soda-water bottle. The - time was
th<n 32.50 by the watch of defendant and 1.5
p.m. by the clock in the room. About this
time another car pulled up outside the hotel,
and two or three men went down the passage,
passed the parlour door in which witness was
sitting. Defendant then told witness dinner
was rea<jy. While having dinner witness could
hoar voices coming from a room adjoining din
iug-room. On two or three occasions the defen
dant came out of<thls room, and once had a glass
towel over his shoulder^ At 1.20 three men
came through a doer ifito thfe dining-room and
sat down to dinuer. ' . .
Cross-examined by Mr. Ton Dousea, witness
said be was carrying a camera on the day of
the alleged offence. The car In which the ladiers
came to the hotel came from the direction of
Adelaide. He did not know that the hotel
was noted for keeping a very good table. He
was quite satisfied with the dinner he hfed, but
he would not say it was remarkably goad. He
presumed it was Mrs. Horeell from whom be
ordered dinner. Be then went for a walk as
far as the Stanley Bridge and returned about
noon. He did not consider he was breaking
the law by orderiD% and consuming an alco
holic drink in an hotel on Sunday, because
he was a police officer acting under instruc
tions. He knew "O.T.," had not heard of
"ginger brandy," but knew of "ginger stout.5'
He only had the one drink in the hotel that
day. He did not see the party of ladies have
another drink, and he saw no other drinks
served in the hotel that' day The place was
quiet and orderly. The party aBked witness to
photograph them and he did so. He did not
taste or smell the liquor that was brought in
for the ladies and the gentleman.
Defendant tendered evidence to the effect that
on the day of the alleged offence his little
girl came to him and said, "A party in a motor
car want to speak to you.". That was about
eleven o'clock. The party ordered dinner for
seven. 'They did not stop the engine, but
drove straight on. Just before one o'clock they
returned. The ladies entered the parlour and
Mr. Orutchett walked down the passage and
asked if he could have a drink. Defendant
replied, "Only teetotal stuff." Mr.\ Crutchett
spoke to the ladies and gave an order for two
ginger brandies, a ginger stout and a soda
water straight. Those drinks were non-intoxicat
ing, and he supplied them in the private par
lour. M.C. Brandenburg was in the parlour.
Mr. Crutchett. his sister, Mrs. Trnran and her
two daughters came into the hotel, but Mr.
Trnran remained outside with the motorman.
Brandenburg, on being' asked to join the party
in a drink, asked for a Dewar's whisky. Wit
ness told Brandenburg he could not give him
Intoxicating liquor, and said be would give
him an O.T. and soda. Mr. Crutchett and Mrs.
Trurart had ginger brandy, one Miss Truran had a
ginger stout and another Miss Truran a "soda
Cross-examined by Sub-Inspector Giles, wit
ness said he had fourteen visitors- to dinner on
the day of the alleged offence. He supplied so
other drinks that day apart from drinks to
boarders. While Brandenberg was having din
ner three men who had come for dinner were in
the temperance bar. He positively stated that
he supplied Brandenberg with O.T. and soda.
When he received the summons he did not
know to. what act of supply It referred to
until he heard from Bridge water that it referred
to the visit of Sirs. Truran. That was why he
told Mrs. Truran. The Brldgewater Hotel said
they had been summoned for an offence on the
same day, that a man named Brandenberg bad
caught them, and that Brandenberg had bad
dinner at the Stanley Bridge Hotel that day.
Witness said be went to town and told the
Truran's he had been summoned. He did not ask
the Trurans anything concerning Mr. Crntchett
and nothing was said about the drinks they
had at his hotel. He was at the Truran's
home on a Thursday, and he saw Mr. Tru
ran at the races. When witness first called
upon the Trurans he made no arrangement to
( see them again. He called upon them the sec
ond time to make an appointment to meet Mr.
von Dousea. in town. He did not go into the
bar to get any of the soft drinks, not even
the soda-water. He served no intoxicating
liquor that day except to his wife and- the
boarders in the evening.
Felix Withal Crntchett, watchmaker and jew
eller. of Moouta, corroborated the evidence, of
the defendant. He told the court he bad only
, been served with ginger-brandy and soda. Under
cross-examination he stated that he seldom
drank 'intoxicating liquor ' and did not drink
spfrits.
LUias Maud Tcnran, married woman, resid
ing in Adelaide, in her evidence told the court
that the defendant did not call at her house
and that she did not have an interview with
.Mr. vou Doussa. Nobody had asked her to come
up and attend the court that day. She thought
St wise to come up.
Mr. von Doussa addressed the Court, hut the
S.M. intimated to Sub-Inspector Giles that
there was no necessity for him to do so. t
The S.M. said the case was a clear-cut issue
as to who was telling the truth—the constable
or the other witnesses. If Constable B&nden
berg was swearing falsely, his evidence would
ibe a wicked concoction. When they such
a conflict of evidence on a clear-cut isuse such
as this, the case was decided not ,on the di
| rect evidence, bnt on the side issues. The de
! fondant had been sailing along very nicely In
bis evidence until he told the court that on any
the three occasions on which* he saw Mrs.
| Trnran there was no discussion concerning 'what
happened at the hotel. His Honor did not be
lieve that statement Tor one minute. The defen
dant bad very, good reason to call upon the
Trurans. Mrs. Tniran's e^denee flatly con
tradicted the evidence of the defendant. His
Honor had come, to the conclusion that the
throe witnesses for tlie defence were abomin
able liars. They were perjurers, and he would
seriously have to consider placing the whole
matter' before the Attorney-General. The de
fendant would be fined. £10 and costs.
« Crutchett, who was a witness in the pre
vious case, was fined £5 and £1 costs for
having obtained liquor at the Stanley Bridge
Hotel on September 17. ,
Sub-Inspector Giles prosecuted and Mr. gB.
von Doussa defended.
$