PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1314, 18 December 1911, Page 3

PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS.

IN BARRETTS HOTEL. An appeal case—Williams v. Jones—was decided in the Supreme Court on Saturday by a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Chapman. This was an appeal of Susan Doores Williams against a decision of Mr. W. (J. Riddell, S.JI., who, on July 1, 1010, had convicted the appellant of permitting drunkenness on licensed promises, Barrett's Hotel. At the hearing, Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the appellant, and Mr. H. H Ostler for. the respondent. The appeal was made on the grounds that the decision was erroneous in point of law, and as to the- findings of fact, the contention be-in? that there was no evideuco of permitting drunkenness or supplying liquor. In the course of his judgment, his Honour said: Two informations were laid, one against Vercy James, the barman, for supplying liquor to George M'Kinty, a drunken man. and the other against* the appellant, the proprietor of Barrett's Hotel, for permitting drunkenness on the premises. Tho magistrate, dismissed the eliarpp osrainst the barman, as there was no direct evidence of supplying liquor and the supplying v,as denied on oath by James. Tho evidence relied on in that case was that when the police' entered 31 kinty was' seen standing at the bar counter with a man named O'Neill, and that each apparently had a long glass of beer. That Miunry was drunk is not disputed. . . . The same evidence was rolled on with other circumstances- to suetain the charge -against the licensee. The appeal is a general appeal. The witnesses were not recalled, and the material relied on was a report of .the evidence before t io magistrate and a newspaper report of the two cases; Though it is well settled that in such appeals the evidence is on the prosecution, it is not unreasonable to attach some importance to the conclusion arrived at by tho magistrate on tho same evidence. . . 1 should have no hesitation in aflirmiiig.the magistrate's decision but lor one circumstance on which a goad deal of reliance was placed, namely, that according to the evidence of W G Wil r!!!! US i fi £01 ! ° f 'r 8 licsnsi *> " e "ad been round tho bars live minutes before the police came in, mid had not seen Jflvinlv in the one where he was found. If, therefore, there was a permitting of drunkenness it consisted of conscionslv allowing a drunken man to remain" on the premises lor four minutes or le« • •,. :. T , h . cre .'W perhaps, therefore,' be a distinction in such a ca,se between permitting drunkenness and merely suffenV stated roijson, as a,licensee is not bound to take excessively harsh measures to eject a drunken man. Here, however, tiiough tho time wos short I think that tho magistrate was justified in convictin" When the police entered, Jl'Kintv was seen standing at the bar counter with his elbows on the counter and a glass of beer, now said to hnve belonged to another man, in his hand. He had hold of it, and apparently had it off the counter, as when tho po ice servant spoke to James and said that Mvkinty ought not to have been served, M'Kinty placed it on the counter. James then removed it and plaoed it under the counter This is fuily conCrmed by Constable Challis. Hft ™\- ~, at Ji 'KintT and a man named *lf v erc ,! t v- mling Aether in front oi the bar. M Ivmty's glaes was about a third full, or, as Jaines says, had a fe-.v dregs in it. When the sergeant drew James s attention to the position, James said to M'Kinty: "This is not yours, is it.- and M Kmty was too drnak to answer. James then took the beer awav It seems to me to come to this: that' Jl Kinty came in very drunk, and was tolerated there long enongh to allow him to get hold of a glass containing beer belonging to another man. It may be that ho drank out of it, though tliis is not made out beyond the.evidence that it was kept there for another man who mi "it: return, that when in M'Kinty's hand'it contained a very small quantity, said to be a few dregs, and that when "the police railed attention to it the barman promptly put it away. The evidence further -nows that O'Neill thon offered to lake -M'Kinly away, the latter being a friend of his. The defence is that James rciused to serve him, and ordered him to go out. It is evident that the man was too drunk to properly appreciate such an order. I think it is quite dunbtt'ul whether tho barman asked O'Neill to remove M'Kinty, as the evidence rather shows an offer by O'Neill k> perform this service afle_r t.he police camp in. Merely cskiii-; O'Neill to do so would not meri'uvi-r Millice unless Jnmoo was in a iic.-itioii k> rely on O'Neill, nnd gave directions for il'lLLatx's uroiact removal, I do not I

think that the evidence comes up to this. It wns open to.James iiuietly to put the ■nun out. 'What ho dirt v:tis to continue conversing with O'Ni'iil while that person drunk lii.s own ljecr <it liis leisure. For reasons I think that, thoiißli the time ffis short, there was sui actual permission for M'lunty to remain there in ;i condition of drunkenness during that short period, and that that constitutes the ofTencc charged. If the barman lnrt been embarrassed by any diflicultv, I might have taken a different view uf (hi*, but as the facts appear in Iho case there iva- absolutely liuue."' The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with .t"i j≤. co-U-.