BEER OR LEMONADE?

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 281, 23 August 1919, Page 3

BEER OR LEMONADE?

WAS INTOXICATING LIQUOR SUPPLIED?

MASONIC HOTEL CASE

That what the police alleged was beer was in reality lemonade was tho contention of the defence in a prosecution under tho Licensing Act heard by Mr. B. Page, vi.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The informations alleged that lewis Percival O'Brien, licensee of ■ the Masonio Hotel, on July 25, sold liquor after hours and, further, sold liquor to John Moran, a sailor, who was already drunk; and that William Simins, barman, on the same date, sold liquor to John Moran, a person already intoxicated and supplied John Moran with liquor at a time when he should not be lawfully supplied. Aoting-Sub-Inspector Emerson prosecuted, Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendant O'Brien, and Jtr. H. P. O'Leary for the, defendant Simms. Sergeant Lopdell said that on July 25 At about 11 p.m. he went into adjoining premises whero ho could see into the back bar of the Masonic Hotel. The bar was lighted. Simms wa3 behind the bar. There were five or six or seven men in the bar, .including a sailor (John Moran) in naval uniform.. Witness remained there till after midnight and during the watching earn the sailor served at intervals with 'at least six medium beers. Men were coming and going in the bar all the time. The sailor subsequently became drunk, and the barman continued to supply him with drink i even though he was very intoxicated. Shortly .before midnight Simms took ® book and made some entries and then proceeded to clear the bar. Witness then saw Simms helping the Bailor across the bar-room floor .and subsequently a boarder gave assistance. On going out into the street witness found the sailor lying in a doorway in a state of helpless drunkenness. Witness then entered the hotel and went into the private bar, ■where he took the names of those in the bar. Simms admitted that he had pat a sailor off the premises, and showed witness the entry in the book. Simms said the sailor wanted to take a dog to bed with lAn, and for that reason he was put out. Witness told Simms that the sailor was lying helplessly drunk at the doorway. Simms said he was not drunk but only shamming. The sailor, however, was convicted on the following morning for drunkenness on his own plea of guilty. , . , To Mr. O'Leary: Witness ascertained that the men in the bar were bpaTders. Witness saw the drinks paid for and also the amounts recorded on the cash register—6d. up to 2s. 9d. . To Mr; Myers: Witness had previously visited the hotel," which received', a large . patronage. Constable Munro was with witness when- they looked into the bar through a window. He could not state how the bottles were labelled, but all the liquor oonsumed was supplied from bottles. The defendant Simms could not 6ee witness. ' Constable Munro corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and said that he watched the private bar for an hour and a quarter. The sailor was served with.several drinks which witness Baid were beers. ; ■ 'To Mr. O'Leary: Witness noticed that the liquor which was served was beer and was poured out of bottles, with dia-mond-shaped labels. Mr. Myers (producing a lemonade bottle with a red diamond label): Is that the label? Witness: No, the bottles had a different shaped label and the colour was darker. _ , ~ . Constable Healey gave evidence as to the condition of the sailor when he arjested him. ■ Sergeant Lopdell was recalled to give further evidence respecting the bottles, Eeveral of whioh, with red diamond labels attached, and containing lemonade, were produced. The bottles were simi- , lar to beer bottles, but witness sntd that they were not the style of bottles ", which were in use when he saw bimms serving tie drinks.- .... • This concluded/the case for the,prosecution. ...... , Mr. O'Leary said that he proposed to call his client and also another witness, who "would deny that the sailor was sup- . plied with' intoxicating liquor. The pcsi- ' tion was that the-sailor engaged a room and then went into the bar and asked ' for a "spot." Simms could see that lie had had enough liquor already, and therefore refused the request The sailor persisted and Simms then mixed lam a drink consisting of limejuice and lemonade. Simms then told the sailor to go to bis room, bait he desired to take the dog with 'him, and this was not permitted and the .sailor was then removed from the premises,, as lie "would, not be parted from the dbg. Counsel desired to comment on the fact that when he entered the hotel Sergeant Lopdell did not tell Simms that he. had been servin# a man already intoxicated. The likelihood of such a charge was not mentioned, and it waa not . till the summons was served that his, client knew anything about it'. William Sim ins gave evidence on tne lines of counsel's address. , To Mr. Myers: Witness did not think there were any bottles in the bar with diamond labels on, other than tho lemonade bottles. These bottles wore similar to beer bottles and contained leinonade and were labelled so. To Acting-Sub-Inspector Emerson: The evidence of Sergeant Lopdell and Con- ' stable Munro that witness bad served tho sailor with beer was not correct. Ihe gailor wanted a whisky, hut witness only gave him a limejuice and lemonade, and he admitted that the colour of this concoction whs not like that of beef. Witness admitted that ho had been previously convicted for a similar offence in 1916. , , To Mr. Myers: He was not employed at the Masonic Hotel then. William Wood Wilson, a boarder at tho Masonic Hotel, also gave evidence as to the drink supplied to the sailor.. \Vhen He first saw the sailor he was about "three sheets in the wind.. He would have served him with a drink. Mr. Myers then addressed His v\or''ship on the defendant O'Brien's case. /" Ho stressed the corroboration on tha ' uairt of the police'as to the bottles, the ■police were positive that the liquor sup* plied to the sailor was obtained from a bottle bearing a red diamond label. Ihis was supported by both Simms and O'Brien, who stated that the only bottles bearing such labels or labels similar wore those containing lemonade. As to the sailor, counsel suggested that the condition he was found in was due to a sudden collapse the result of the cold night air—leaving the atmosphere of tne bar aiul going on to the street into the fresh air. As to tho colour of the liquor, ho submitted, with all due deference to , the powers of observation of Sergeant Lopdell and any other member of the polico force, that it was. not possible at night time from a distance to properly distinguish the colour of the liquor. In ' any case the colour of the mixture limejuice and lemonade was not so very much unlike beer. Counsel submitted that his client was entirely ignorant as to the whole occurrence, and on the evidence he did not think tho Court could record a oonviotion against his client. He then called the defendant O'Brien, who gave evidence mainly concerning the bottles. To Actwg-Sub-Inspeotor Emerson: What happened in the bar on that particular night you don't know? Witness: No. , Mr Myers then proceeded to address the Court on tho legal aspect of tho Ca |lis Worship said that he would like to see the premises before delivering his verdict. Tliis course was agreed to, and fWision was reserved till to4ay.. His Worship, together with the polico and the defendant, visited the promises last night.