SERVING A DRUNKEN MAN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 284, 20 August 1918, Page 6

SERVING A DRUNKEN MAN

HOTEL EMPLOYEE FINED INFORMATION AGAINST LICENSEE DISMISSED. An employeo at the Midland Hotel named William Earl was chargcd before Mr. i'. V. I'razer, S.M., at the Magis trate's Court yesterday with having sup. plied beer to Thomas Nilsen, an intoxicated person, nn July 10 Jast. The lio.enseb of the hotel, Joseph Dwyer, was charged with having sold .intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. . Mr. J. J. M'Grath represented Earl, and Mr. M. Myers appeared for defendant Dwyer. «

Inspector Marsack prosecuted, and submitted that although the hotel was conducted in a. very proper manner, still the licensee was responsible for tho. acc of his servant.

Sergeant, slated that about 1.20 p.m. on July 10 his attention was attracted by tho noise of a drunken nan in Laiubton Quay. The man was coming along the Quay in tho direction of the Midland Hotel, in company with another man. Both men went into tho hotel, and witness followed. Nilsen, the maji who was drunk, was standing at tho bar with a medium glass of beer before him. The barman Earl admitted having served tho man. Nilsen was ordered off the premises, and was arrested for drunkenness. A few minutes later, witness returned to the hotel with Constable Lake, and asked Earl why 1.0 had served a drunken man with beer. Earl replied that tho man appeared to bo sober, and that he did not "see him enter tho hotel. Had ho seen him ennoticed !; ho was he would have u.ned him off the premises. Earl also said that there wero twenty-seven men- in the bar at the time, and that he was very busy. Mr. M'Grath: Now, if you 6aw Nilsen in Lambton Quay drunk, why didn't you arrest him there?—" Because, although he was staggering, lie was quite capable, of taking caro of himself, mid appeared to bo a sailor going to tho wharf.

Do you think a man who was stajgering was capable of looking after himself?—"STes; I see sailors every day who stagger, but who are capable of going on board their ships." .

Why did you wait .for him to enter tbe hotel?—"Ho entered of his own accord. I had no suspicion that lift vovld onter the hotel. , I thought ho was going to tho wharf."

You deny, that you waited for him to go into the liotol, and allowed him eufficient time to get served?—"l dany it absolutely." , And that you went into the hotel in order to get a second case?—"l deny it absolutely; the suggestion is a whole crncoction." |

Witness went on to say that Nilsen had not touched the liquor in front of him. Tho barman would have iiad a reasonable timo in which io notice, the mau notwithstanding that 1 hero were twenty-seven others in the bar.

In reply to Mr. Myers, Sergeant Mathesoii stated that Nilsen's mate was drunk, tut lie did not arrest him, as he went out of the hotel himself and disappeared. Constable Lake, who saw Nilsen locked up, stated that he *was very drunk air! had to bo assisted into the cells. 'Witness gave evidence corroborative of what defendant Earl had said v/hen interviewed by. Sergeant Matheson after Nileon had been arrested.

Mr M'Grath contended that the case ®against Earl should be dismissed, as thero was 110 evidence;that Nilsen was so drunk as to hava lost normal control of his body and mental faculties. In a crfin'defi bar it was impossible fir the sergeant ,to 6ay that the driue vm in front of Nilsen. Defendant Earl 6tated that he did not 6ee Nilsen enter' tho hotel. Milan's companion, a tfill man, called for tv-o beers, and put down 2s. Witness gave him one drink and Is. 9d. ohange. Nilsen did not ask for a drink, and ilid rot speak. Had the police not como in he wcuhi have served the ,man with his spcond drink.

Replying to Mr. Myers, the witm-ss staled that at tho time the iwlico enteted the hotel J[r. Dvfyer was not on the premises. Witness shoald have been talung ' his half-day holiday chat <ia* - , but of his own accord decided !o \<ork, as he wanted to go to the raccs on the Saturday. Ho had .continued to work without tho sanction of Mr. uud Mrs. Dwyer.

Inspector Marsack: Would you be surprised to know that IJilsen was 'he tall man you served?—"l did not know the names of either of tho men."

Joseph Dwyer stated that he had been a licensee in Wellington for sixteen years, and had never been convicted of any offence. He wps very strict in his management of tho hotel. ' Defendant Earl was witness's cellannan, and ielieved the regular barman for lunch. On tho day in question Earl have been off the premises. t Mr. Myers submitted that before the licensee could be convicted it must be proved that |Earl was his authorised agent. Earl had no authority to be cn .the premises at tho 'time, therefore ho could not be held to be the agent of the licensee. (

Mr. M'Grath stated that Earl had no opportunity of knowing that Nilsen, v.as drunk. The information against L'arl should therefore Jje dismissed.

His Worship said he knew the.' difficulties which barmen had to encounter, but for that reason it behoved them to be all the more careful. So. far as 'he defendant Earl was concerned, His Worship considered that there was no intention to commit a breach of the law. Marl was a young man, and somawhat inexperienced. It was not safe lor a bar attendant to allow lmnself 10 Jio rushed, and it would be wise for such people, if possible, to have a eon«;'sation with their customers to mnkc sure of their condition before serving lliem. Defendant would be convicted ,and lined X 2, Tho penalty was not a severe one, and was merely inflicted as a warning. Respecting the licensee, His Worship did not see how he could escape linbility for tho act of Earl, who, although he was working-at. the lime without his employer's sanction, was really the authorised servant. Taking into consideration the fnct that, the hotel was well kept, and that the licensee was absent at the lime, ho would treat the offence as u trivial ono under section 92 of tho Justices .of the Peace Act, and dismiss the information.