A LICENSING CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1756, 22 May 1913, Page 7

A LICENSING CASE.

SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO A DRUNKEN MAN. A NOMINAL PENALTY INFLICTED. As the outcome of a prosecution against the barmaid at Foster's Hotel, Wangunui, last week, tho licensee of the hotel, Mr. J. It. Foster, appeared before Mr. W. lverr, S.M., this morning, to answer a cLargo of supplying liquor to a drunken man. Mr. L. Cohen, on behalf of the defendant, pleaded guilty.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. G. Marshall, appoared for the police. Last week tho iniormation laid against the defendant had been for permitting drunkenness, and doubtless,. if tho police could have asked for a conviction on this count, from the evidence then put before the Court, they would have, but owing to the difficulty of -proving the permitting, the present' c'harge had been substituted. Ho would admit that Mr. Foster knew nothing of this particular , case, and that he had given strict instructions to 1 is employees not to supply intoxicated persons, in addition to only employing maids of great experience. Mr. Foster had taken every precaution,, but the law said ho had committed an offence, and ho (Mr. Marshall) had been instructed to proceed.

Jlr. Cohen said that if tile Crown had persisted in their previous charge, the whole of the evidence gono over last week would have to have been traversed again, to prove the defendant's knowledge of the olEenoe. This had all been put a stop to by the-netv prosecution. By the Statute, the, conviction of 3liss Cunningham became automatic on the licensee. Mr. Foster had taken all precautions possible, and it appeared to everyone that he was the unfortunate victim of the Statute. Ho had no alternative but to plead guilty, and state the facts. Ho held that a nominal penalty would meet the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Ken- stated that those two inform,itions, that of Miss Cunningham and Foster, had sprung out of facts substantially from one transaction. At the hearing of. the former case, it was given in evidence— and the prosecution did not, or did not noiv, wish to challenge it—that the licen- . BC-o was absent when the breach t<>ok place, and knew' nothing of it. It cannot, therefore, be stated that he was a party to the offence. It would be very unfair and unjust to Say that he had passively acquiesced in the offence, -is tiierc Were no facts that would lend colour to any sudh suggestion. In the_ previous cfi'e against the barmaid a conviction had been followed by a substantial fine, and it. seemed to him somewhat analagons the inflicting of two punishments for the one offencc. In this ense bo thought q, very slight penalty Wfmlcl b t e su^-iL V I ! 1 ; vindicate the law. As both counsel had pointed out, Foster's Hotel had very fin 4 reputation throughout the Dominion, and it'was his duty to point out that tuerc was nothing in tho evidence to suggest that the licensee had a know edge, fr connived in any way, with the barmaid s offence. The law would be satisfied by % the imposition of a fine of «81, together ' with Crown solicitor's fees («E3 t.s.) and expenses. ' .