October 30, 1909.]
THE CAFE WEISMANN PROSECUTION.
ALLEGED SUPPLYING OF LIQUOR WITHOUT FOOD.
the
The hearing of the charge against manager of the Cafe Weismann, of selling intoxicating liquor without supplying food, was again called on before Mr. J. E. Wood at the Magistracy on Thursday.
Detective-Sergeant Sullivan prosecuted, and Mr. Eldon Potter, instructed by Mr. Crowther Smith (of Messrs. Almada and Smith) appeared for the defence.
His Worship stated that with reference to the points raised by Mr. Potter on the last occasion he had filed on the record a copy of the report which appeared in the Daily Press, which contained a fairly fall note of Mr. Potter's remarks. The report seemed very accurate, and he had filed it with the case in order to have on record what Mr. Potter said. His Worship asked if Mr. Potter had any objection.
Mr. Potter-Certainly not.. His Worship--The points you raised with regard to the sale of liquor and the sale of food, were that if the food was not included in the original contract between the parties, there was still no breach.
Mr. Potter-Isay that it was included and paid for. I don't think it can be suggested that the order for a bottle of beer was one contract, the order for sandwiches another, and the order for the second bottles of beer a third contract. It has been held over and over again that an order cannot be split up in that way,
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. asked for sandwiches. He could take his oath that sandwiches were mentioned. If the constables said this was not so they were not speaking the truth. He took the sandwiches and beer to the customers on the same tray.
Mr. Potter said there was no doubt at all that sandwiches were, in fact, put on the table. There was a great conflict of evidence in the case for brought and whether they were ordered. The the prosecution as to when the sandwiches were
constables agreed that they did not order them, but one constable said the sandwiches were brought a considerable period after the beer was supplied, and the other said that the cally at the same moment. If his Worship sandwiches and beer were supplied practi believed the latter constable's story it practi- cally proved his case, which sandwiches were in fact ordered and brought. was that the Counsel suggested that the constables had made a mistake about this case. The second man the boy's pidgin English. admitted that probably they did not understand He thought it was fair to say that a man who did not understand
>>
pidgin English would find it rather difficult word "sandwiches to understand what the boy said, and the mere for the boy, because it was obvious that the boy would be quite sufficient understood little English. It was quite possible that the constables were making a bona fide mistake. His Worship had just said that the point in this case was whether the sandwiches were ordered or not. With all respect he submit ted that that was not the only point. Assuming that the constables simply ordered beer the law- and all were presumed to know the law that if they went into the premises of un adjunct licensed holder they could order beer, but the adjunct licence holder or his servant could say that he would give them beer but they would have to take food. Taking that argument a step fur- ther it came to this-if the constable did not order Mr. Potter-I take it your Worship has over-supply the beer and then put the sandwiches sandwiches the servant was quite entitled to ruled the food point?
His Worship Yes.
His Worship-The second point was about your client holding a transfer. I am prepared to overrule you on that. In the third point you say that the licencee is not liable under certain conditions. Whether he is liable or not will depend on the evidence you call.
before the constables and compel them to pay for them. The servant would then be doing Mr. Potter-And your Worship will state what he could to comply with the law. But your grounds?
His Worship-In the final decision.
Leung Chan Fu was called and deposed to being a waiter at the Cafe Weissmann, in which service he had been for over a year. When he was engaged he was told not to serve any customer with drink unless that customer ordered something to eat. Notices to that effect were posted up in the establishment in Chinese. He remembered two customers calling about nine o'clock on the evening of October 1st. Witness asked them what they wanted, and they said "Pilsener beer." They were then asked whether they wanted cakes or sandwiches and the reply was sandwiches." Witness took a plate of sandwiches and two bottles of beer on a tray. Later another customer entered and sat at the next table. Witness
asked him what he wanted and he said "nothing but Kupper beer."
What did you say to that?-I asked him what he wanted to eat and he said he did not want anything. He said he only wanted beer.
Did you say anything then P-I said if he did not eat anything he could not have any drinks and I did not serve him.
Do you remember anything else ?-The two customers who entered first then spoke to him, and the third man went and sat at their table. One of the first customers then called for three beers, but I did not supply them. I first asked the taipan.
What did the manager say?-He told me not to give any drink to the last man, but to supply the others, who had eaten something.
Who made their bill out ?-The No. 2, as I cannot write English.
His Worship-Is not the rest admitted? Mr. Potter-I think it is, but I was going to call witnesses who would prove that money was actually paid and that there was a bona fide
mistake.
His Worship-The only point is whether the sandwiches were really bought or not.
Witness, proceeding, said he was quite certain the manager instructed him when he joined that he was not to supply drink without food,
In reply to his Worship, witness said he could not recognise the two constables, but he was sure it was the one with the moustache who
the constables saw they were in the wrong, thought they had better pay for the sandwiches, and did pay for them. Once those sandwiches were paid for, there was beyond all doubt a sale of food. His
27
Worship was inclined to hold that unless the sandwiches were ordered first and the beer afterwards, Weissmanns ought to be convicted, but there was nothing in the Ordinance to suggest that or anything like it. holder was a person who might sell spirits and All the Ordinance said was that an adjunct licence intoxicating liquors as
an adjunct to his business. If because Constable Spillet used the word "beer" before "sandwiches the straining the Ordinance against the defendant, defendants were to be convicted; that would be and there was no authority by which his Worship could convict a man in such circumstan- ces. His Worship might be disposed to go according to the spirit of the Ordinance, and food were only a subterfuge. On that point of opinion that these sales of
licence. The licence gave power to a confec- Counsel would refer him to the adjunct tioner to sell two gallons of intoxicating liquor with a five cent tart.
say
he
was
of some kind.
His Worship-There is a delegated authority
liquor without food.
Mr. Potter-There is no authority to supply
His Worship-But there is a delegated authority to supply liquor with food, while the licencee remains on the premises he has de- legated authority to these boys, and they supply each customer who comes in.
Mr. Potter-In a particular way. If, on that night Mr. Eckhardt had left the premises and said to the No. 2 that he was going home, and a breach of the law had occurred during his absence, he would have been clearly liable. In this case the manager was on the premises, and the boy went to him for advice.
His Worship - Which advice was taken sub. sequent to the sale.
Mr. Potter said it was subsequent to the first sale, but with regard to the third customer the boy was wily enough to see that there had been no sale of food, and that there might have been an infringement of the Ordinance. That was the strongest piece of corroborative evidence
389
they could have that Mr. Eckhardt took every possibly precaution. Another rather suggestive point was that the same boy supplied both the sergeant and the two constables, and re- fused the sergeant a second time, although the second trap was a most ingenious one on account of there being food On the table. What the prosecution wanted his Worship to believe was that although the boy in the sergeant's case, he was willing to do so refused to commit a breach of the Ordinance.
in the case of the constables. Counsel sub- was not a fair suggestion. If his Worship had mitted that this was really absurd, and that it
any doubt, the defendants were entitled to the benefit of it.
Monday morning.
His Worship reserved his decision until
CORRESPONDENCE.
EC
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HONGKONG
DAILY PRESS."]
THE MILITARY REBATE.
the logic of the argument which I advanced in SIR,-"Roderick Random's" failure to see
support of a return to the Military Authorities of the duty paid by the Garrison on liquor, instead of a remission of the duty,
arises out of an erroneous notion that each private soldier's share is to be commensurate with his individual consumption. That is not the case.
The amounts each man will
get depends upon his rating, not upon the quantity of liquor he consumes. The total abstainer will share equally with others. There is thus no motive for drinking, and the story of the co-operative society, told by your correspondent is seen to have no application.
My idea was that if each man were to receive his share of the return at fairly long intervals- say, every three months instead of every month--the large amount accumulated might make it seem better worth while putting by.
Yours truly, M. STEWART.
រ
Hongkong, October 25th.
THE CLOCK TOWER.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS."]
Hongkong, 23rd October, 1909. DEAR SIR,-I feel sure many an old resident in Hongkong sympathised with Mr. Murray Clock Tower. Hongkong cannot boast of a Stewart in his plea for the retention of the old
long and varied history, and therefore any monument that has existed for fifty years may be regarded as an antiquity and worthy of our sympathy and respect. The Tower was erected
which we in what we call the Mid Victorian age-an age now regard with horror for their
destroyed treatment of ancient things. Our grandfathers or "" restored (which was often almost worse) ancient buildings, and banished to the attics the beautiful furniture of their grand- fathers. We now regard them as Philistines for what they destroyed or restored, and we rescue their cast-off furniture from the attics and venerate it. Let us be careful lest we be regarded by our grandchildren as Vandals and Goths for destroying our only ancient monument--which they, gazing at some ancient photograph or picture-postcard may consider a miracle of beauty and design. And as to the appearance of the building to the present day eye, everyone would not agree with the sentence of ugliness; many might prefer its simple and unostentatious architecture to some of the buildings being erected near it at the present moment, and surely it is a dangerous precedent in this Colony to pull down a building because it is ugly! Where could we stop? As to its being an obstruction, there is plenty of roadway on either side of it, and as to its utility, my sex at least will acknowledge how many a tram or ferry they would have missed if they had not had a glimpse of the face of that clock-Yours truly,
A LADY RESIDENT.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.