LICENSING CASE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2404, 9 March 1915, Page 9

LICENSING CASE

— PERMUTING DRUNKENNESS

NOMINAL PENALTY IMPOSED

The charge against Christopher Janson. licensee of tho Wellington Hotel, of allowing drunkenness on bis licensed premises on Soptembor 28, was again before the Magistrate's Court yesterday. In the original action, decided in October last, the evidence of the police was to the cffect that a man named John Saul was found drunk in the bar shortly after 8 p.m. The licensee was away at Paekakariki at the time, and the Magistrate was called upon "to decide whether he could be held responsible for tho action of bis barman (Woods) in permitting a drunken man to remain in the bar. The Magistrate dismtssod tho charge on the following grounds :-(l) That as the defendant, with his wife, was absent, and could have no knowledge that .the drunken man was on his premises, he could not in law be convicted of permitting drunkenness there. (2) That there being no evidence that the defendant, whilst absent, had delegated his authority to the barman, he was not responsible for the wrongful acts of the barman.

Against this decision the Crown appealed on the grounds that it was orroneous in point of law, and in allow- ™ a PP ea '> His Honour Mr. Justice- Chapman said that he was unable to accede to the Magistrate's proposition of law. Evidence of such delegation never was given, and seldom would be procurable. The delegation was to be inferred from the outstanding facts. It was enough to show that the barman was there, and presumably was placed there 'as barman by the licensee.

Yesterday afternoon, when the case again came before Mr. Cooper, Sir. M. Myers, with Mr. J. J. M'Grath, appeared for the defonce, and Inspector iaendrey for the prosecution. Mr. Myers said that although the case _ had been referred back to the Magistrate, the defence could still adduce_ facts that would warrant the Magistrate dismissing the information. Mr. Myers said that he proposed to call evidence to show that, when Mr. Jansen was away at Paekakariki on the occasion in question, he delegated his authority to young Mr. Jansen. shortly before 8 o'clock on the evening 111 question there had been trouble in the bar, and Mr. Jansen, junr., had rung for the police. Was it likely, sa-idxounsel, that he would do so, and at the same time break the law by permitting drunkenness on his premises? Inspector Hendrey replied that the defence could not re-open the case, as it had already been closed., Mr. Myers replied that Inspector Hendrey s contention was absurd! The position was similar to that in which in a civil case counsel for the defence, after addressing the Court on the legal aspects of the case, applied for a nonsuit. Should this be grarted and subsequently appealed against,at the Appeal Court, and if the case again came back to the lower Court, tbe evidence was taken up where it was left off previously. Inspector Hendrey contended that counsel' for the defence had closed his case. . <

After further argument his Worship held'in favour of Mr. Myers, and evidence. was' accordingly called. The first witness was Christopher Jansen, licensee of the Wellington Hotel, who said that on the evening in question his son Harold Jansen was in charge of the hotel, witness being away at: Paekakariki.

Harold Jansen stated that when his father went away it was understood he (witness) was m charge of the hotel. On the "evening,in question witness.was in charge, and just" before 8 p.m., as there was some trouble in the bar, witness rang up for the police. Later witness inspected the bar, but did not see the man Saul there.

Andrew Martin, who was assistant barman on the evening in question, gave similar evidence- He said Saul was not in the bar when he (witness) finished work at' 8 p.m.

This concluded the evidence, and Mr. Myers contended that on it the information should be dismissed.

Inspector Hendrey said it had been shown : 'that the son had been negligent and that there was "connivance" ■in that drunkenness was permitted on 'the premises. . ' Mr. Myers interposed that when Mr: Jansen, jun., went through the bar about 8 p:m. Saul was not there. The Magistrate:'l think that the evidence shows that Saul was there during the evening. "I am afraid I must convict," said his Worship. , * Inspector Hendrey agreed with Mr. Myers that a mere nominal penalty would meet the case. "The case is unfortunate for Mr. Jansen. and I am sure that had he been there there would not have been any drunkenness on the premises," said the Inspector. A fine of £1 was imposed.