MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2155, 10 August 1907, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

Friday, August 9. (Before Mr, Barton, S.M.) Breach of Second-hand dealers’ Act —ln the case of Police v. W. J. Attwood, alleged breach of Second-hand Dealers Act, Detective Maddern stated that defendant had received goods from customers and had failed to enter their names and addresses in his books. Mr. Stock, who appeared for defendant, said that in the case of receiving the articles from Collingwood, the defendant' had been very busy and had attended to two customers after serving Collingwood and the thinhad escaped his memory.—His Worship reserved his judgment until 10 o’clock this morning to enable the defendant 1 to be present. Breach of the Cook County Bylaws —Stewart, a carter, was charged with driving 4 horses in a dray having tyres of insufficient width. T-ho •ecu id v-lcaded gui'ty, art! wan fined ttl with costs £2 13s. Failure to maintain—The case or Sarah Ann Hyde v. Henry Hyde, failure to maintain, was struck out, the matter having been settled in Mr. Barton’s room. Permitting Drunkenness on Premises.—Judgment was given in the case Police v. Harris, heard on Tuesday, as follows:—Defendant is charged that he, being a licensed publican for the premises known as the Albion Club Hotel situate at Gisborne, did on the 19th. day of July 1907, permit drunkenness to take place on his licensed nremises. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution, viz., Sergeant W illiams and Constables Irwin and 1 ratt, is that a man named Feeney was on the date named in the public bar ot the defendant’s licensed premises, drunk, and that he was removed therefrom by Sergeant "Williams, and taken outside into the street, and from there to the lockup by Constables Pratt and Irwin, on the charge of drunkenness, and the evidence of the Clerk of the Court shows that lie was brought before the Court on the following morning when he was charged with drunkenness, and pleaded guiltj and was convicted and fined. I satisfied from the evidence that the man had been in the bar of defendant’s hotel in a drunken state for about an hour. Several witnesses were called for the defence, who stated Feeney w'as not' drunk. I prefer however, to accept the evidence ot the police as to tho man s condition and am satisfied that he was drunk, and that tho barmaid must have known that he was drunk. Mr. Stock, counsel for defendant, contondes that, ■assuming Feeney to have been drunk and allowed to remain in the bar while in. that state, the defendant had committed no offence by allowing him" to ho there, for the'reason that the man was at the time a lodger in tho hotel. I am satisfied from the evidence that the man was a lodger in the house at tho timo of the alleged offence. It has been decided by Mr. Justice \\ilHants in the case Robie v. Bowden— ] New Zealand La w Reports \ 01. 24, page 10, —that where a. licensee lias i no duty contractual or moral to allow . a drunken man to remain on his premises, and does allow him to re- , main, ho is guilty of the offence of allowing drunkenness to take place on his premises, and that if the licensee is absent from his premises, , but a barmaid has a general authority from him to servo liquor, and control the bar on his behalf, and if a man comes on the licensed premises irunk, it is the duty of the bar- I maid to have him put out, and merely telling him to leave is not a performance of that duty. The present case differs somewhat from the case quoted inasmuch as that the drunken person is this case was a lodger, and in the other he was not. I am of the opinion however, that it is the duty of a licensee or his representative in case of a lodger being on his licensed premises in a drunken state, to either order him to go to his room, or to leave the premises altogether, and if the drunken person is permitted to remain in a public part of the premises the lieenseo is guilty of the offence of permitting drunkenness to tako place on hispremises. “In this case the drunken person was permitted to remain in a public bar for about half an hour, without any attempt being made to remove him: ho was not even told to go - on tho contrary—he was encouraged to remain there for the amusement ot tho barmaid and others in the bar.. “If as is contended by counsel tor the defence, it is no offence under the Act to permit one drunken lodger to be in a public part of the house, then there would be no offence, in allowing twenty, and if such a state I of tilings, is to be permitted it would call * e a great nuisance and annoyance to decent people about the of op j n i on , after considerin<' all the circumstances of this case, that notwithstanding the fact of the man Feeney being a lodger -lefendant has committed an offence by allowing him to'remain in a public part of the house while in a drunken state.

I In my opinion, it is tlio duty of tlio barmaid, seeing tlio, stato lio was in, to luivo ordered him to his private room, and in caso of refusal to go, Co have him romovod from tlio promises altogether. “A lioonsoo is clotliod with authority to rid his premises of drunken persons. Section 162 of ‘‘The Licensing Act of 1881” is ns follows“ Any innkeeper may refuse to admit, and may'” turn out of tlio promises in respect of which his lioonso is granted, any person who is drunken; or who is violent, quarrelsome or disorderly, whether drunken or not. and any jierson whose presonco on his premises would subject him to a penalty under this Act, and may refuse j to serve with liqour if demanded only ns a pretext for remaining on the premises.” “I am of opinion that defendant is guilty of the oiTonce charged and lie is therefore convicted and fined £5 with costs of Court 7s. “This being the first case, so far as I am aware, in which the question has been raised as to the right of a licensee to permit a lodger while in a state of intoxication, to ho in a onblic portion of licensed premises, t shall refrain from ordering that the conviction he endorsed on tlio license of tlio defendant.”