"CLOSE TO THE LINE"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 58, 6 September 1926, Page 10

"CLOSE TO THE LINE"

AN APPEAL ALLOWED

T+4€ HOTEL CECIL CASE

In a judgment delivered to-day, Mr. Justice MacGregor allowed the appeal of James M'Parland, licensee of the Hotel Cecil, against the conviction of Mr. E. Page, S.M., of permitting drunkenness on the licensed premises of the Hotel Cecil. In the course of his judgment, his Honour said: — "In the result, I respectfully agree with the following statement of the law on tho subject by Cooper J. in Agnew v. Matthew: 'The essence of the offence is, consequently, "permission" ■by the licensee or his servants to the drunken man to remain upon the premises while in drunken state. This means, in my opinion, that there must bo evidence that the licensee consents to the drunken person remaining on the premises. As Mr. Justice Chapman said in Williams v. Jones, the permission consists in consciously allowing the drunken man to remain on the promises. The time during which the drunken man is, to the knowledge of the licensee, upon the premises while in a drunken state, the reasons why he has not been ejected, and all the other surrounding circumstances must be taken into consideration.' '' On applying these principles of law to the facts in the present case, I am in the end not satisfied that the offence charged has been proved against the appellant," said his Honour. "The evidence does not convince me that there was a 'permission' either by the licensee or by his servants to the drunken man to remain upon tfie licensed premises. The licensee himself was not present, and knew nothing of the occurrence. His barman admittedly was present, but I do not think that the evidence establishes that he 'consciously' allowed the drunken man to remain on the premises, within the meaning of Agnew v. Matthew. The appellant here is charged with a criminal offence, and is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt be clearly proved. What are the particular circumstances attending tho present prosecution? A drunken man came into the appellant's bar a fewminutes before closing time on a busy Friday evening. There were then from fifty to seventy men in the bar. He asked the barman for a pint of beer. The barman saw that he already had enough drink, and said: 'No, get out of it!' Then, according to the barman's evidence in this Court: 'He turned round almost immediately and went to_wards the door. I did not see him go through the door, because as soon as he left the counter his place was filled up by others. I believed the man went out of the bar, and so took no more trouble.' . . . The case is close to the line, but after consideration I do not think I would bo justified in convicting the appellant on this evidence of permitting drunkenness in his licensed premises. "In the present ease I am certainly not satisfied on the facts before mo that either the licensee or his deputy (the barman) did willingly and unlawfully allow a drunken man to come and to remain on the licensed premises on the day in question. "The appeal must accordingly be allowed, the decision of the Magistrate reversed, and the information against the appellant dismissed. There will be no costs of the appeal, as the circumstances were undoubtedly at first sight suspicious, and I think the police were quite justified in laying the information." At the hearing, Mr. W. Perry and Mr. A. Blair appeared for the appellant, and Mr. P. S.-K. Macassey for the respondent.