ALLEGED LAXITY IN HOTEL BARS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2279, 13 October 1914, Page 3

ALLEGED LAXITY IN HOTEL BARS

* CHARGE AGAINST A LICENSEE POLICE INSPECTOR AND THE . MAGISTRATE A CASE DISMISSED A case of particular interest to tho licensing trade was heard before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Christopher Janson, licensee of the Wellington Hotel, was charged with permitting drunkounces on his premises on September 28 last. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for defendant; who pleaded not guilty. • Inspector Hchdrey said that a man had been discovered sitting in.the bar of the Wellington Hotel on the evening of September 28 in an advanced state of drunkenness. The ovidenco would show that the barman noticed the man's condition, asked him to leave the hotel twice, and left it at that. The man had later been arrested by the polico for drunkenness. Tho polico alleged that tho drunken man had been in tho bar of'the hotel for tho greater part of tho afternoon, and that he had had one drink outsido .the hotel./ The licensee was out of town on, tho day in question. An hotelkeeper. must, however, ho contended, be held responsible for the act of his servant. Potico Sergeant's Evidence. Sergeant O'Halloran said he visited the Wellington Hotel on the evening of September 28 at twenty minutes past eight. He found about a dozen people in the bar, a barman named Harry Woods being in charge. Witness saw a man liamed John Saul sitting in the bar asleep. From the man's appearance witness could seo i. ho was drunk, iu reply to a question by witness as to what tho 'man was doing there, tho barman replied: : "Yes, ho ought to be out."/ Witness then said: "Well, you ought to toll, him to go, then." The barman then called fo the man: "Get

up, Jack," but '.'Jack" did not move, i and witness told Constable Spenco to i "shake him up." When ho was got i .up the man co'uld not stand at,..a11. i Witness told the constable to take the i man 'to< the- station. ' Witness then - asked'the'barman if Mr. Jansen were ; about, and was . informed that the : licensee was away at O.taki. 'The man . Saul ■' was about - five or. six feet from tho bar counter; sitting , ia. a corner. There was no table by him. He had to be half carried to the. lock-up.. Subsequently witness and Constable Spenco returned to the hotel and. saw, Woods, who made the follow- ■ ing statement:—"l know the'drunk, Jack Saul. He was found sitting by the police when' I came on; duty at 8 a.m. J..told him to go twice before tho police came. : I .did- riot servo him '• with any drink, because I thought ho had aad enough.": ■ •' ■ _. ■ . ■ To Mr. M'Grath: Witness did not. see Saul go into the bar. It was quite possible with a crowd of people in the bar for the barman not to -'have been able to seo Saul where.ho was sitting. Constable Spence gave 'corroborative evidence. - • ■ ' To Mr. M'Grath: Witness would deny ithat .there were twenty men in tho bar. Witness would not have'been surprised if there had been many more before he arrived. Witness found out that' Saul was drunk* by shaking him. ■ ', '."A Hostile Witness."' John' Saul, a labourer, said lie had, been arrested in the Wellington Hotel on the evening of September .28. Witness said ho did not remember anything after dinner time ,'on the day in question. Inspector Hendrey: What.do yon remember up to the time you ceased to remember!'' —"I ddii't remember. ■ Inspector Hendrey: Do yon remember the statement made to the police?— "No." " .'.' ' ' ' ' Inspector Hendrey: Do.you remember signing it?—" No." , Tho .Inspector: Have you received anything lor this lapse of' memory? Mr. 'M'Grath: I object; This is a most improper suggestion for Inspector Hendrey to ■ make. The Inspector: I ask leave to treat this man as a hostile witness. Mr. M'Grath (heatedly)': The police ought to know better than Dnng drunken men into'the court. Inspector Hendrey: 1 can only treat this witness as hostile. ■ There is nothing to account for this extraordinary lapse of memory. ' , ,'. : Inspector Hendrey then proceeded to question witness,on his previous statement to the police.. \'Be careful," admonished the inspector, "the clerk is going to take down all your'statements. Did you tell the police you left home, at 8.30 on the morning of September 28?" , •■■'.■ Witness: I don't remember. The Inspector: What time did you leave homo?—"I don't remember." Inspector Hendrey: Were you drunk then?—"l must have been." Inspector Hendrey: Then you woke up drunk?—" Yes." ; : Inspector Hendrey. Then you went to bed drunk?—" Yes." • The examination proceeded on. in this 'strain. ' .„'',/',,- Inspector Hendrey, finally: And you Teceived no inducement for this lapse of memory?—" None at all." To Mr. M'Grath: Witness_had been on a "spree" for a week prior to his arrest. The Defence. In opening the case for the defence Mr. M'Grath said that the police were exactly in the same position as in the case against the licensee of the Hotel CeciL "What Inspector Hendrey wishes to bring about," said Mr. M'Grath, "is a very laudable thingchange in the legislation." Mr. M'Grath went on to quote two cases recently decided in Auckland; in which, as there had.been.no "connivance" on the part of the licensee in respect to drunkenness being on the premises, the cases against the latter had_ been dismissed. The licensoe had in one of these cases been up at dinner and was unaware that drunkenness was going on in the premises. Contining, Mr. M'Grath Baid there was no evidence that Saul had stayed in the Wellington Hotel for any appreciable length of time. 'While in view of the fact that it was quite clear that Mr. Jansen was unaware of Saul's presence in the bar, and remembering tho cases decided in Auckland, the information must bo dismissed. Inspector and Magistrate. Inspector Hendrey submitted that a licensee must delogate his authority to somebody when away from his premises. The "somebody" in the present case must be the barman. The inspector quoted an English case.in supnort of his contention. "No wonder if Pro-, hibition is carried," said the inspector, when wo see the pitiable example tho man Saul gave in the box this morning. Tho Magistrate: I propose to dismiss tho case. Inspector Hendrey: Would Your Worship say on what grounds? The Magistrate: On the ground that there is no proof that tho. licensee*, permitted drunkenness on his premises and on the authority oF the cases quoted Inspector Hendrey: Then Your Worship holds that a licensee is not r*

sponsible for tho act of his serv.ant? Tho Magistrate: There is no proof that tho licensee delegated his authority in this case. '■Inspector Hendrey: Should Your Worship not call evidence in this respect. The Magistrate; I don't think that is necessary.