BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 475, 2 September 1909, Page 3

BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT.

PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS. LICENSEE FINED £5 AND COSTS. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday the following cases of alleged breaches of the Licensing Act were heard. Ethel Gray, was charged on the information of the police, that she did, on August 4th, sell intoxicating liquor to a person already in a state of intoxication, to wit Michael Lewis. William Dalzell was charged with, being the holder of a publican’s license, in and for the house and premises known as the Post Office Hotel, Foxton, did, on August 4th, permit drunkenness on the said premises. He was further charged that on the same date he did sell intoxicating liquor to a person already in a state of intoxication, to wit, Michael Lewis. All three cases were taken together. Sub-Inspector O’Donovan conducted the case on behalf of the police, and Mr Innes appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. The Sub-Inspector called the following evidence for the prosecution;—

Harry O'Donnell, labourer, said that he had known the deceased man, Michael Lewis, for some years. Remembered the night on which he was drowned. Saw him that night at about seven o’clock, at the Post Office Hotel. Deceased was in the public bar, but witness did not see him served with ' drink. To Mr Innes: Was not sure of the time he went into the hotel, and was only there a few minutes. Lewis was in the hotel when witness went in. Did not know if Lewis had had any drink, but he had a glass with a little liquor in it in front of him. He still remained in the hotel when witness left, and he appeared alright. Witness did not see him again. Albert Edward Cunninghame, labourer, said that he knew the deceased man, Michael Lewis, who was a seaman on the Moa. Remembered the night he was „ drowned. He saw Lewis that pW'ht between half past eight and '“tjbjy o’clock, coming out of the Slyfjcaman’s shop. There was ano--nan with him. Lewis spoke nriil C ness wben came out, and J him to come and have a Lewis was then under the '**' nee of liquor, and had a bit A P° wei ;tagger on. interest. j nnes . Had known deartietea, j or s j x or seve n years. Was ■ 1 tbat was tbe ™g ht °* it 4th that he saw him, as he VA was q ea q nex t morning. - r to him for about t toi rinutes. .Lewis told witness Cast- would get him a couple of of beer if he liked, but E/? refused. The other man .Jas with Lewis must have * 1t , H he conversation. Onleav- _ ° . .'ess they went towards the . Manta a.. TT - , ice Hotel, uavjsas. Sub-Inspector: Lewis t Q^m-' cel un<^er arm which jts of was taking to the hotel, p ._*♦ iot say which hotel. Thomas Mitchell, labourer, stated that he knew the deceased Hichae' Lewis, and remembered the night on which he was drowned. Between 9.30 and 10 o’clock that evening he was at the corner of the old post office in comp. ...jr with Messrs F. Dunn and W. Anderson. Saw Lewis and another man come across the street from the direction of the Post Office Hotel. Lewis was certainly “a bit boozed.” It was noticeable as he came across the street. The other man assisted him across. Did not see Lewis alive again. Saw his body on the wharf about an hour afterwards. The man who assisted Lewis across the street stayed talking to witness and another man assisted Lewis down the street towards the boat. To Mr Innes : Dunn was not drunk at the time, nor had he been drinking. Witness had only had one drink and was not looking for more. Lewis said “good evening, Tom.” Nothing more was said. Will swear that the men were supporting Lewis. Both the firemen and Lewis were drunk. Did not notice if either of the men had bottles in their pockets. To the Sub-Inspector : Remembered meeting Constable Woods. He passed shortly after Lewis had passed us. Frederick Dunn, fisherman, said that he knew deceased Michael Lewis and remembered the night on which he was drowned. That evening himself and Mitchell were standing at the corner of the old post office between half past nine and a quarter to ten. Lewis came across the road from the direction of the Post Office Hotel in company with another man. This man had hold' of Lewi :.’ arm and was assisting him across the street. Could see that Lewis was staggering and the other man was trying to get him along to the ship. They passed witness and Mitchell and went towards the wharf. Did not remember them speaking. Saw Lewis’ body on the wharf 15 or 20 minutes afterwards. To Mr Innes : Anderson joined witness after Lewis and the other man had passed them. Was of opinion that Lewis was the worse ior liquor. To Sub-Inspector: Lewis was staggering when he crossed the street. John MacArtney, fireman of the Moa, stated that he remembered the night : in question, August 4th. Lewis worked .umtil 5 P- m - tbat .day. Lewis, -witness and three •others went up to the Post Office Hotel after _ work and had one ■ '"''v

drink. They all had beers. Returned to the ship and had tea. Did not leave the vessel again until 8 o’clock. Did not know what time Lewis left the ship after tea. Witness and several others went to the Family Hotel, and some played billiards there. They afterwards went into the public bar at the Post- Office Hotel. Lewis was there and had a drink in front of him and was talking. Mrs Gray was serving in the bar. Mr Gray came in afterwards. Witness had one glass of beer, two cigars and a packet of cigarettes. Could not swear if Lewis had drinks at that time. Pie was in the bat the whole time. At about a quarter to ten witness said ‘T am going down aboard,” Lewis turned and said ‘‘So am I.” Witness went out and Lewis followed. When he got outside he started staggering and witness took hold of him and led him down the street. When they got to the railway crossing Lewis said he was alright so witness let go of him, and walked a bit ahead. Witness went on board and was going aft when he heard a splash. Was of opinion that Lewis had a drop too much. Mrs Gray served them with the first drinks alter tea. To Mr limes : Was in the Post Office Hotel for about 15 or 20 minutes. Did not remember meeting anyone on the way to the ship. Was engaged in keeping Lewis up and did not notice anyone pass. Sometimes deceased would jump aboard the boat, but he did not do that on this occasion, as witness saw him on the bottom of the gangway. There was a bare gangway a little over two feet broad. William Gray, hotelkeeper, _ remembered the day in question. Mr Dalzell was on the premises that day, but was going away again. He was not.about the bar. Mrs Dalzell was in charge of the hotel. Witness’ wife was serving in the bar between seven o’clock and half past nine, and the barman was also there from eight o’clock. Neither Mr or Mrs Dalzell were about. Witness was responsible. He knew the deceased Lewis, but did not see him come in, and he (witness) was only in the bar for about five minutes at nine o’clock. Went in to speak to Lewis. That was the only time witness saw him, and did not see him served with any liquor. To Mr Innes: There was no signs of drink about Lewis when witness was speaking to him. Constable Woods remembered August 4th. Was on duty between nine and ten o’clock. In passing the Post Office saw Dunn, Mitchell and Anderson together. Went up and spoke to them. They were all perfectly sober. Passed on down the street and returned about ten o’clock. Heard that a man had been drowned at the wharf and went down, and saw the body of deceased on the wharf. Removed the body to the morgue, searched it and found £4 ns6d. Returned to the ship and examined the gangway, light and also the net. Also examined the pay sheet and found that deceased was paid a little after five o'clock and the amount of his wages was ,£8 16s 3d. The gangway was about five or six feet long and about two and a half feet broad. There were no side guards. When witness examined the body of deceased in the morgue he found a bruise across the forehead. To Mr Innes; The gangway was fairly steep up to the ship. The net was not wide enough to catch anyone falling off the gangway.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr Innes contended the case against Mrs Gray should be dismissed as there was no evidence to show that she served any quantity of liquor to the deceased. In reference to the cases against Dalzell, the question was, what was the man’s condition when the last drink was served to him. Cases had been known where a man was perfectly sober on leaving an hotel, but very shortly afterwards was in a state of intoxication, which was due to the effect of the different atmosphere outside. He contended that there was no evidence to show that the man was in a state of intoxication when the last drink was served to him, and the case should be dismissed.

The Magistrate said there was a case to answer, and would hear the defence.

Mr Innes called Mrs Gray, who said that she was on duty in the bar on August 4th, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Lewis and some of his mates came in between hall past seven and eight o’clock. Witness only served one round of drinks to them. Noticed Lewis in the bar during the whole of the evening. He was only out of the bar once for about ten minutes. He didn’t seem intoxicated in any way when he left. Witness served him with a glass of beer. Saw her husband speak to him about 9 o’clock.

To the Sub-Inspector: Any liquor that Lewis had during the evening was no doubt procured in the house. Could not say whether the barman served him or not. Lewis did not bring witness any fruit. Constable Woods did not speak to her about the case. When witness last saw Lewis he was sober, as were his mates. Edward McLean, barman at the Post Office Hotel, said he remembered serving Lewis and four others with a drink each shortly after five o’clock, Lewis had a beer. Witness left the bar at six o’clock, and came on again at eight o’clock. Lewis was in the bar when witness came on. During the evening witness supplied Lewis with about three drinks, and be also took two smokes. He left the house some time before half past nine, and there was

nothing in his appearance to suggest that he had had too much liquor. Witness thought MacArtney left with deceased. To the Sub-Inspector : During the evening Lewis was only out of the bar for a few minutes. He brought nothing with him when he returned. Saw Mr Gray speak to deceased about nine p.m. If deceased staggered it was not due to drink, as he was sober when witness served him with the last drink.

William Hollis, recently employed on the s.s. Moa, said he had known the deceased for seven or eight years. On August 4th they were paid their wages at about ten minutes to five. Deceased received £8 6s. Witness, deceased and another went up to the Post Office Hotel before tea and had one drink. Lewis shouted. Had tea on board- Left the boat again about 7.15. Witness went into the Post Office and sent £4 to Wellington. Two pounds of this was Lewis’. They afterwards went into the Post Office Hotel. Lewis besides sending the £2 to Wellington, sent £1 to the Secretary of the Union, paid 5s to a mate on the boat and also gave 2s 6d to the boy. Lewis was in the bar during the whole evening except on two occasions on which he was out lor a lew minutes. He would not have had time to go as far as the Chinaman's shop on either occasion, and even if he had time, deceased would not have gone as he made it a practice not to deal off Chinamen. Lewis did not buy any fruit that evening. They only had four drinks during the whole evening. Lewis drank medium beers- He left the hotel with McCartney and was able to walk. He seemed as right as rain. He was certainly not the worse for liquor. It would be a simple matter for a sober man to fall off the gangway. To the Sub-Inspector: —The day after Lewis was drowned, was in the Post Office Hotel and saw Mrs Gray and the barman. They asked witness a few questions in reference to the accident. They also asked him if he remembered Lewis having any beer to take away with him. Witness said that he did not. Witness came up from Wellington the previous morning and was staying at the Post Office Hotel. Mr Gray asked witness yesterday if he thought Lewii was drunk and he said no. Had come up from Wellington as a mate of his had told him that Mr Gray wanted to see him. Saw Lewis smoking a cigar during the evening. He was standing up. Witness said he was alright when he went on board. Had two drinks after Lewis left. It was not true that the skipper ordered him below because he was not sober.

Charles Fulstrome, sailor on the Queen of the South, said he remembered the night of August 4th. Went up to the Post Office Hotel with Lewis and two others. They arrived there at about 7.15. Lewis left the hotel at about 9.15Witness had five drinks during the evening, and Lewis did not have so many. Lewis was sober when be left hotel. When witness left the hotel he saw Lewis at the corner of the Post Office, conversing with some chaps there. Witness bid him “ good night.” It was very dark. To the Sub-Inspector: Mrs Gray served the first drinks. Lewis had three or four drinks. Lewis was standing all the time he was in the bar, and it would be untrue if any one said he was sitting down. Witness said he was sober.

Robert Ross, employed on the Queen of the South, said he had known Lewis for about three years. He was in the public bar of the Post Office Hotel when witness went in about half past seven. Witness stayed in the hotel after Lewis had left. During the time he was in the hotel he (witness) had four drinks. Lewis and MacArtney left together. Saw Lewis walk out, and he walked alright, and was unassisted. Witness left the hotel about a quarter of an hour afterwards, and saw Lewis and MacArtney conversing with some others at the corner near the Post Office.

To the Sub-Inspector : Did not notice Lewis leave the hotel before he left finally. Saw him conversing with Mr Gray, who was behind the bar at the time. Lewis drank medium shandies. This closed the case for the defence.

The Magistrate said that the first charge, that against Mrs Gray, would be dismissed as the evidence did not prove that she served Lewis while intoxicated. In the charge against Dalzell of permitting drunkenness he was satisfied that the man Lewis was drunk when he left the hotel, and that he was made drunk on the premises. The parties in the bar should have known the condition of the man. He would be convicted and fined £$ with costs 19s and witness’ expenses £2 14s. Under the circumstances, Mr Dalzell being ill at the time, he would not order an endorsement of the license.

The other case against defendant would be dismissed,