A LICENSING CASE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2785, 1 June 1916, Page 5

A LICENSING CASE

BARMAN FINED £3.

David Sullivan, licensee of the Pier Hotel, was charged before Mr. W. G. Riddell.. S.M., in the Magistrate's &>urt yesterday that on April 28 ho permitted dranke'nness on his licensed promises, also with selling liquor to a person intoxicated. The barman, William Sim, was also charged with supplying' liquor to such person. Mr. J. M'Grath, who appeared for both accused, submitted that the case of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises was similar to one already heard, and dismissed, by his Worship, ar.d suggested that a similar course should ])3 taken in this case. Mr. .Kiddell decided, however, to hear the case. After hearing the evidence of Sergeant Lowiri, his Worship decided that the case against Mr. Sullivan for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises must be dismissed.

Mi-. M'Grath admitted the charge of supplying and selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and urged in mitigation of the offence tliat Mr. Sullivan had been a licensee for twenty-five years, and no offence other than .this had been brought against him. It was the peculiarity of the law that a licensee was not only responsible for the act of his servant, but both wore punishable, whereas under other legislation no two persons were punishable for the one offence. His Worship took into consideration the fact that Mr. Sullivan had ap excellent .record as a publican. In this case he was liable for the act of his employee simply because the Act made him liable, although he had no part in the offence itself.. The licensee would bo fined 205., and costs 7s. The barman's case was different. He ought as a good barman, to know when a mail was drunk or not drunk, and when to serve men with liquor and when not to. The_ penalty for his offence under Section 205 of the Licensing Act was JBIO, but as this was not as. aggravated offence the barman would be fined £3.