LICENSEE IN COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2297, 3 November 1914, Page 9

LICENSEE IN COURT

THISTLE INN CASE RESPONSIBILITIES ©P HOTELKEEPERS . Another hotelkeeper, Wm. Hannafin, licensee of the Thistle Inn Hotel, waß charged before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday with'permitting drunkenness on his premises -on October 16 last. Tho licensee, was further" charged with selling liquor, to, Alexander Watson,' a person already in a. state of intoxica-, tion. Pleas of not guilty were entered in each case, Mr. H-. F. O'Leary appearing for the defence. ■ Inspector 'Hendrey prosecuted:

. The two informations were taken together. -,

Inspector Herfdrey stated that the eyjdence lie had was that the police visited the Thistle Inn Hotel and found a man there sitting in one of the rooms olose'by a slide, and in full-view of defendant, who. waß in the bar serving, and who had him under his observation. The man was drunk, and was served witlp a. glass of beer. He had appeared before the, 'Court next, morning and was convicted for drunkenness.

A Police Sergeant's Evidence. Sergeant. Henry Baid that in company with. -Constable Tricklebank he visited the hotel shortly before 10 o'clock on the, night in question. On entering the front of the bar witness- saw., Watson in a. room behind the bar, with several other .men in 'his company. -Watson was sitting on' a seat , drunk ' and . quite handy to the bar. Defendant and his barman: were in the, bar at the time. Watson had his head on-his chest, and apparently'asleep. Witness then'went through , the .public and private bars to the room-where Watson was. Ho shook ■Watson up and asked 1 him what was the'matter, but received no reply. Witness; seeing the condition, of the man, told:Cohstable.Tricklebank to bring the licensee into the room. .In the meantime AVatson "reached up to the slide and, took the glass of beer there. Witness'took it from him, and Iby this time. Constable'Tricklebank and the licensee appeared. Witness drew,-the licensee's attention to Watson's condition,, and ho replied, "I did not-know he was like that. I. had better get him out." Witness added, that, there "was no question but Watson was drunk, and when put outside he arrested him on this charge. The Sergeant and the Lioenseo. 'To Mr. O'Leary: Witness had paid ; pany visits to the licensee's house during the four-months lie (the licensee)' had been in the hotel, Witness was not satisfied with tho way the licensee was conductingi the hotel. Witness had complained to Hannafin about the treatment lie had received from the barman. Witness would deny -absolutely that he said, "I will nave you yet, Hannafin.' 1 Complaint had been made to the- Commissioner of Police by Hannafin about the attention witness, had directed-to his hotel; /.This- complaint was under investigation now. Witness' did not know .how long Watson was in the hotel before, he discovered him. When wit? npss came into the hotel the "licensee's backiwa'S'-.to- the . slide where Watson was. '. : Watsoii could- not bo;seen:.from the private, bar, but witness thought he could ;be seen from' any part of the public bar.N Hannafin and' the: barman njijst have seen Watson. The slide ex-, tended nearly the- whole.-width- of the room. Watson could have got into the bar and be seated without "either Han-J nafin or the,barman seeing. him. When witness • spoke - to'.Watson one. of the men said, "He's all right-; let's have a 'screw' at him." . Witness, said to this man, "Your place is outside," and the man in question ; ; weht out. When somo men came to bail Watson out they remarked that at twenty minutes past 9 o'clock he was sqber. When he showed them Watson in the cell they were quite satisfied he was drunk. . 1 At tliis.stago the case'was, adjourned till 2.15 p.m. .' .... On resumption, Sergeant -.Henry was reexamined by Mr. O'Leary, and admitted that'unless anyone in the bar were serving a-person'through the. slide they,wolild have'.their back to them, and, .further, .that .witness could' not swear that the glass of liqnor on the slide belonged to Watson.' -'.

Constables Tricklebank, • who accompanied Sergeant Henry to the hotel, gay© corroborative avidence. Ho said there were four or five glasses of liquor on the slide at the time.

y Watson's Evidence. Alexander Watson, a railway porter, said /tlia't, on the day in' question lie left work - at 3.30 p.m., and ■ had not had -any drink up'till then.. He thenwont over to the Thistle Inn, where he had three pints of,beer, after,which he caught a ,tram at 4.30 and went'liome. About fcenminutes past seven o'clock ho took a oar to Lanibton tram-sheds and went'to the Thistle Inn Hotel and stopped there till 8.30 p.m., having, in the meanwhile, two:or three drinks.. He was' quite sober when he left the hotel, and somewhere, about nine o'clock went back to the Thistle Inn, where he-had three drinks in 1316 public bar. He went outsido and,-returned to the room off the bar, but did not have any'drinks to his knowledge. He hadn't, long sat down,-when he was arrested. ' Witness had; just a faint. recollection-of what happened. As far as his memory served liim'.he had had altogether nine drinks that day in the .hotel. .'■• .'■To Mr. O'Leary: Witness wis perfectly sober at 7.30, and , was 60 when hp had a drink in the public bar'.the third time. Witness had no recollection of the time that elapsed when "lie left the bar the third time, and when ho returned to the room off the bar. Witness had often been in. this room, and he could have come yi without anyone in the bar knowing.'

The Defenoe. ■Mr. O'Leary .submitted that on the evidence of- the prosecution defendant could not be convicted. He would, in justice to his client, have to go through cases quoted in the recent cases heard before the Magistrate in Wellington, four things had to bo proved: (1) The man discovered must be drunk on tho promises; (2) the licensee or his representative must be awa.ro lie was on :the promises; (3) that tho licensee fir lu's representative must' know he was drunk; (4) that knowing he was drunk he permitted the man to remain on the premises. After the evidence lie (Mr. O'Leary) could not seriously contend Watson was not drunk. As to tho second point,'tho evidence showed that neither the licensee nor tho barman were aware that lio (Watson) was on the premises. As to the third point, there was no evidence to show either knew Watson was drunk. There was ho proof to show that Watson 'was on the premises for any length of time, while neither wasi there aiiy to show there was a sale of liquor to Watson. The tatter's own recollection was that he did not purchase any liquor in the side room.

For tho Prosecution. Inspector Hendrey, in reply, quoted r caso whero a man was found druilk in a ditch,, and the'licensee had been convicted because tho i'nan 'in' question was found near the hotel—the only one iu the district. If defendant pleaded he had no knowledgo that a man was found helplessly drunk on tho premises, said tho Inspector, must not that very admission show that tho licensee was negligent? "I submit," said Inspector Hendrey, "that tho man should bo

called on to give an explanation of his conduct." Mr. O'Leary replied that if Inspector Hendrey's contention were oorrect, a licensee would be obliged to have a man stationed at the hotel door to watch people as they; came in. The Magistrate remarked that it was absurd to say that the licensee did not know of Watson's condition after what had been disclosed in the evidence. Mr. O'Leary: Of course, if Your Worship holds that I will bring evidence to prove otherwise. If necessary, ■I will ask you to come to the bar and inspect the position for yourself.' At this 6tago the case was adjourned to 2.16 p.m. on Thursday.