Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x9728 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LICEN-
SING LAW.
MR. J. P. T. CAULFIELD PROSECUTED.
THE CASE DISMISSED.
An alleged breach of the licensing law was
heard in tha City Court yesterday, when Mr.
J. P. T. Caulfield, the licensee of the Grand
Hotel, was charged under the 39th section of
the Wines, Beer and Spirit Selling Act, with
selling, on tha 18th inst., liquor on unlicensed
premises adjoining the hotel used as a single
bottle department. The bench comprised
Mr. Cowan, P.M , Messrs. R. A. Scholl and
Traylen, J.'s P.
Mr. Haynes appeared for the defence.
Mr. Haynes as a preliminary objection
asked that Mr. Traylen should retire from
the bench.
Mr. Traylen : I don't intend to. You can
save yourself the trouble of asking.
Mr. Haynes quoted from one of the text
books on Justice in which he suggested the
propriety of any justice abstaining from any
proceedings in which he was personally in-
terested ; in which he might be biassed, or
might lead people to naturally believe he
was biassed. It must be within the recollect-
ion of the bench, he argued, that a little war
had been going on in Perth, in reference
to liquor selling, in which warfare Mr.
Traylen had taken a very active part
against publicans generally. In all licensing
cases, Mr. Traylen had sat on the bench, and
in no case had his verdict been in favour of
the publicans. He, therefore, urged that
Mr. Traylen be asked to retire. Mr. Caul-
field had taken a prominent position in the
agitation referred to, and if the decision of
the court was to be held with respect, it
must be that of justices who were thoroughly
impartial. If it was suspected that he was
biased, surely the good taste of the justice
would force him to retire.
Mr. Traylen: When I have been on this
bench I have acted impartially.
Mr. Haynes : With all respect ---
Mr. Traylen : You say that my actions on
the bench have been unfavourable to the
publicans, but I say I have acted impartially.
Mr. Haynes : I do not say that His Worship
would wilfully oppose the publican's inter-
ests, but he would unwittingly do so. There
must be no suspicion of bias on the bench,
because if the publicans were fined the people
might say that it was because so and so was
on the bench.
Mr. Cowan, P.M., said the magistrates
were well aware of the practice laid down.
The interest must be of such a nature as
was calculated to bias a man on one side or
another, but it must be shown that such was
the case, and that justice was thwarted.
Similar objections had been made to Mr.
Traylen before in similar cases, but unless it
was shown that he was biased he had a
perfect right to sit on the bench. Because
Mr Traylen was a strong advocate against
intemperance, it was not to say that he was
biased against publicans. The present case
involved a tecnicality-- pure question of
law.
Mr. Traylen said that the fact that his
name was appended to nearly every certificate
of license m Perth, would show his entire
freedom from bias.
The case then proceeded with Mr. Traylen
retaining his seat on the bench. '
Mr. Haynes said that the charge was
one of using adjoining premises for the
purpose of extending his hotel accom-
modation, and it was a question whether
this addition made the license a new one.
Sergeant Claffey said the room where the
alleged illegal sale took place, was not part
of the premises licensed in January last. The
walls adjoining the two premises had been
pierced through.
Thomas Kelso, police constable, said he
had visited the shop in Barrack-street, ad-
joining the Grand Hotel, on Saturday night,
and purchased a flask of whisky produced.
The wall of the building had been broken
through since the license was granted. The
room which communicated with the billiard
room of the hotel was used as a bottle de-
partment.
By Mr. Haynes : He believed Mr. Caul -
field's brother served him. The shop had not
been opened since Saturday. It waa opened
for the first time that day.
Mr. Haynes : Did you take this action on
your own authority ?
Witness : No.
Mr. Haynes : From whom did you receive
your instructions ?
Witness : From my superior officer.
Mr. Haynes pressed for the name of the
person who gave the instructions, but the
question was disallowed.
Witness (in reply to Mr. Haynes) said he
thought it was a double wall that divided
the shop from the billiard-room. He had
known of the opening of the shop to have
been advertised, and he had seen the words
painted on the widow, " Grand Hotel single
bottle department."
Mr. Haynes contended the shop in question
was part of the hotel ; it was leased from the
same proprietor, and the sleeping rooms of
the hotel were situated over it. He also
submitted that the licensees of the Giobe,
Criterion, and other hotels had added to
their premises from time to time and nothing
had been said about it.
Constable Cavanagh corroborated the
evidence of the previous witness.
For the defence, John Hurst, contractor,
said that he had originally leased the
premises. The building was not erected
strictly according to specifications. There
were two rooms not in the occupation
of the licensee which had been pro-
vided for in the specifications. The
licensee had the right to all the rooms
over a row of shops adjoining the hotel, but
had abandoned two of them with the view of
leasing the shop nearest the hotel, should it
be required. The shop had been reserved
for that purpose. The identity of the
licensed premises was not affected by the
alteration. He looked upon the addition of
the shop as a decided improvement to the
premises, as it preserved lady customers
from going into the bar to purchase liquor in
bottles. He thought it was in the interests
of the publio that the single bottle depart-
ment was opened.
Mr. Cowan, P.M. : That might be a ques-
tion with the husbands.
Mr. Haynes quoted the case of Regina v.
Smith, in whioh a Queen's Bench decision
was given in favour of licensees making reason-
able additions to their premises so long as they
were regarded as improvements and the
identity of the premises was not destroyed.
In this case Mr. Caulfield had got the opinion
of four legal gentlemen before he opened the
shop.
After some further argument, Mr.
Cowan said that the information had been
laid under the 39th section of the Wines,
Beer, and Spirits Sales Act, charging the
defendant with having sold liqnor without a
license-- that was to'say, that the defendant
sold on premises which were outside the cer-
tificate granted to him by the Licensing
Bench. The license was issued in respect to
defined premises and "any appurtenances
thereto belonging." It seemed to him that
the licensee who found his premises insuffi-
cient could make reasonable alterations, and
the present case could not be said to be an
offence under the provisions of section 39 of
the Act, which referred to persons who were
wholly unlicensed, and imposed a very heavy
penalty. There had been other cases in the
city in which publicans had enlarged
and added to their premises. No action
had been taken in these cases nor had it ever
been considered that the publicans had trans-
gressed the law. It did seem that the cases
cited by Mr. Haynes applied to this case and
that the alteration referred to did not
destroy the identity of the building. He
therefore dismissed the information.
Mr. R. A. Sholl concurred in the decision.
He also thought the wards *' appartenances
thereto belonging " in the license certificate,
would legalise the act of the defendant.
$