A LICENSING CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 188, 30 July 1908, Page 4

A LICENSING CASE.

OILAIICiK AtiAIA.ST IiUI'EL I'llUriilJiTOlt. Tllli CASE DItJ.MJ!jbKL>. The much-adjourned licensing cilse came before -Mr. 11. S. Filzlierberl, S.iU., si .u'ni.iv, tiic healing lasting until Hill into the altcrnoon.

ijcurge bishop, licensee of tile Taranaki Uotel, in New Plymouth, was charged witli ila\ permitted drunkenness upon the hold premises on June i:illi. Air. lirey appeared for the defendant, and the police were also represented by counsel. I | Counsel's opening stated that the in- | formation was laid under section 1-lti ot" the Licensing Act, ISBI, and the penalty was a line not exceeding ,C2l> lor a -lirst oll'ence. He outlined the, ease for the prosecution, which would I prove that two men entered the notel, I on tlie morning of 13th June, soon af-

ter each other. At one o'clock the first man was "far gone in drink,'' and with the landlord's permission he went upstairs to lie down. The second man was similarly accommodated later on.

Jlr. Grey said lie would very much like to know who the "first man'' and i the "second man" were. This opening was very indefinite. Informant's counsel said he had no need to mention the names in order to prove his ease. The first man. lie continued, had a sleep, and was taken away at 5 o'clock by .Mr. Millmgijoii, who was told by the licensee that tlie man was upstairs. At 9.13 p.m. Ser- i geant Baddrell and Constable Melvor found the "first man'' silll in tlie room, lounging on a bed, with a glass ol beer in his hand, while on a table alongside were a bottle of beer and a bottle of gin, whitih liad been opened. Counsel submitted that to support a charge ol this sort it was not necessary to prove that a man was in that stage of drunkenness which brought about an entire suspension of body or mind. The S.M. remarked that the Chief Justice had Held that a man was not drunk so long as he could stand up, order his drink, and pay for it. Counsel quoted authorities, finally mentioning a New Zealand decision that a hotclkecper was liable for per mitting drunkenness on his premises if a drunken man came to the hotel and he failed to have hiiu removed, unless there were circumstances which, would make that an act of inhumanity. In this case, there was 'no obligation on the defendant, either moral on contractual, to permit these men to remain on the , premises. They were drunk, and tl;e licensee, either by carelessness or efc&ijjjto, had permitted them to re-

Edgar Russell, 'horse-trainer, residing in New Plymouth, said that on loth June he went to the Taranaki Hotel. Shortly after he got there a man came who reiuaiued there practically all day. Mr. Urey asked for the name of this "illusory personage." The prosecution retorted tltat the names could be obtained by the defence by asking the witness. Witness continued: He remembered a man being removed from the noicl about 0 o'clock at night, and lie Jiad ; seen the man arrive at the hotel at 10 o'clock in the morning. Up till one o'clock this man, witness, and others, were in the bun drinking. Witness was drinking "light stuff." lie remembered a man being taken away late in the afternoon in a cab by Mr. Milungton. That man arrived 111 thejiotel about 11 o'clock in tac nioruing, or a little after "the other man." "lhe man who was taken away at o'clock by Sergeaut Haddrell was ;'preity iul!'' : at one o'clock, lie had "had plenty of | drink/' and asked Bishop, the licensee, if he could go upstairs and lie down. He was "fairly drunk.'' ihe man was taken upstairs. The man who was taken away by Mr. Millington later in the day was takcu upstairs, too, by the witness, lie took him up tu tue ioom where Bradbury—(confusion of th«witness) —the other man, was lying. The Bench: He gave the name ot' the man there. (A smile went round the Court). Witness: The man lay down on a bed—tfhere were three in the room. He did not know if any drinks were served there, but he and three or four others had drinks there. There was. champagne.

Tiic Bench: That's Supposed to make you sober, isn't it? Witness said he was in the room when Mr. Millington came, accompanied by Bishop. He was in the room when the police came, about 9 o'clock in the evening. The man who had asked permission to go upstairs and lie down was then drunk, and he admitted that he was. The police took him awav.

To Air, Grey: Both men wore sober in the morning. Witness was in the hotel all day. and "had a snack of something/' He forgot whether the Other man, who was taken away by the police, had lunch witli him. * -Mr. Grey {opening ]iis cross-examin-ation): J think* it would be more convenient to use initials. Did you assist B. upstairs? Witness; Xo. not 8., the other one. I said Mr. B. was helped upstairs by someone else. Could not remember if lie had lunch with Mr. B. Remembered going out with Mr. B. to have tea at a iUh shop. B. was quite able to walk there. There were consumed in the bedroom during the afternoon a large; and a Small bottle of champagne and a bottle of beer, and these were consumed by four 01* five people. The men were "jolly enough/' He could not sav they vere very drunk. Mr. Grey: How would vou define drunkenness? Wituess: I don't know much about it.

Mr. Grey: Are you prepared to swear that either of the men had hard drinks, that is, drink containing alcohol? Yes. How do you know? I saw them drinking it. Whisky's a bard drink, isn't it? Witness said that the drink consumed in the bedroom was not purchased in the hotel.- but was ''sent out for." When the police came. B. admitted that he was drunk. Witness said to 8., "You're not drunk; you're sillyV Ifc could not remember B. answering that he had made the statement with a view of helping the licensee. B. walked downstairs.

S. G. Millington, gaoler at New Plymouth gaol, gave evidence of having gone to the hotel about 5 o'clock on June l:Uh. asked the landlord about a limn, and received an answer that the man was upstairs. Witness procured a (■ah from the Egmout «trect aland. He knew when' the person lived, but could not say how far from the hotel. The N.M.: The identity of these men is pretty well known over New Plymouth?

Police counsel: Yes, but- the man who made them drunk ;hoiild take the discredit. To Mr Grey: 31. was not drunk. He could not say if B. were drunk.

Re-examined: M. was sober enough to walk away. J don't say he was absolutely sober, but he was not drunk. Sergeant Haddrell gave evidence of his visit to the hotel, in consequence of a complaint received. He was looking into different rooms, and saw two men walk into another room. He followed them in. Russell, Proctor, and the man

>|>nkt'n of as Mr. I}. wen; in the room. KusSell and Proctor were both sober. I!. wa« sitting on tho lu?d, with a glass of apparently fresh-drawn ale in bis hand. A fr'eshlv-OjifMi'Ml bottle of beer .-it'iod on the dressing table, with ;i square prin bottle of liquor. That \v;:more than three pnrU lull. Mr. 15. wk* very drunk. Within a few .«eeonds Dwhnp came into the room. Witness a*kod, "What is tlie nicnniii" of this? This man here i? very drunk" l'.isliop said, "Wliy, the begjjar! i didn't know that lie was lierc. ] .-aw the bo2«ar «*t mil of tlio hack dour about sewn o'clock." Witness walked out ol' the room, looking for another man whom lie. had been led to believe was al-o in the house drunk. That was thi' other mall referred to in the course of these proceedings. After some converslati'm I', consented to l'o licine. Ha walked downstairs, ilrriininfr ivituess proffered assistance. li.t'ore leaving the room lie assisted J!, to adjust Ins I dresf—lie could not do it for ' Took him home in a cab. li. took the bottle of jlin with him. Assisted li.'s wife ;o pnt hint to bed. »yf day the / man was in a very bad con M il io.i. snf- j fering fr 111 excessive alcoholism. li.'s j house was about .'l2 'chains from the, hotel, and M.'s about '2O ebaiits. To .Mi'. (!rey: He knew Mr. I!., audi knew his normal state. He was very

very far from hU normal statu that ■ An soon as witness saw Jiiui he came tu the (.'unciUr?ion that lie was in a, statu ot" chronic alcoholism. Constable iYlcLvor gave • corroborative evidence. IVosb-uxuiiiiiii'd: There were dillereiit stages ol' drunkenness. 13. was "absolutely drunk." 'lhi* eloped the case for the tioii, and the Court adjourned till p.m.

Un resuming, i\lr. (.rev, opening for tlie defence, drew attention to Uie lact that tiie alleged oll'ence was committed, some six weeks ago. Proceedings wore not instituted for some weeks later, and in consequence of that the lietcuuant hud been greatly inconvenienced. It was now impossible to locate t.W man named ililn, mentioned during tlie morning, who would have been a material witness for the defence. The barmaid, too, who presided at the private bar on that day hud since left tlie district. lie advanced the contention thai the informant had not only to prove drunkenness, but also knowledge of il >by the licensee. The witness UuSseh

liad sworn that the drink consumed in the afternoon was brought in from another hotel, and was not purchased with the knowledge of the licensee. The champagne bottle found in (he room bore the name of another liolol in wliieh the liquor was purchased. The fci.M. said that he had had no proof that M. was drunk. ill'. Grey said he would lead evidence t'liat B. never asked the licensee about going upstairs, and Mr. 11. would be | called in evidence. lie would show I that IJ. went out to tea and returned

to tile house without tin; knowledge of the licensee, and tlint lie had no more drink that evening with the exemption of i ill If ii glass of heel 1 mentioned by the police. He would prove tiiat there was no knowledge or connivance on the part of the licensee. He had no desire to reflect upon the police witnesses, hut it was u matter of common know-

ledge that a man's opinions were influenced by his preconception. The police went to the hotel for n purpose, and in the box the sergeant had gon'e, so far as to say that he could tell a.; mail was drunk immediately lie'saw him. Mr. Grey quoted further judi-

cial opinion that intoxication was not necessarily drunkenness. The Magistrate said the law now was that if a drunken man went on to licensed premises and remained there the licensee was liable for permitting drunkenness on tin* premises. It w.is not common-sense, but it was the law, and lie must be guided by it. After outlining the ease for the defence, Mr. (irev culled evidence. William lloland I'roetor, a painter, of Waitara, remembered being in the bedroom with B. when Sergeant lladdrell arrived. In liis opinion, 15. was not drunk.

George Bishop, the respondent, re inenibered B. coming to his hotel on tiu morning of the 13th June, before ii o'clock. Witness was serving in tin main bar, and the barmaid in the pri vate bar. Bradbury came in, looking white and shaky, and in answer to wit uess he said his heart had been troubling liim again, and lie had been laid up foi ;i few days. He bought a bottle of gin which ho put in his pocket, and askvi for a cooling drink. Witness made hi)' i drink Chat was practically non-intoxi mating, hock being the strongest in* [•redicnt. Bradbury had another drintc and then crossed into the private Inn* The assistant came out twice from then for drinks for Bradbury, who receive the same mixture each time {hock am soda, sarsaparilla and kola nip). The S.M.: 1 should think that fo.'i of those would mak<- any man ill. Witness: They'd make him ill even i they didn't make him drunk, lie eon timVd: The next time he saw Bradbur was when Miilington came. .Prior t< that lie had not known Bradbury was ii ihe house, lie had 110 cause to believ he was intoxicated. Saw Bradbm; again about 7 o'clock that evening in ; sitiing-room with seven or eight other; Lhiaks were ordered, Bradbury ordei iug "the same as I've been having," bn he went out by the side door, icaviiij the glass of liquor on the table. Th next time he saw Bradbury was abou 0 o'clock, when the sergeant eanie. Th sergeant asked, '"'Where's M."? "Wit ness said that he had gone home hour before. The sergeant then asked "Where's B.?" to which he replied tha lu» had gone, too. Sergeant lladdivl opened door of No. 7, and said, '"W ho's this?" pointing to Bradbury. Witne?> then made use of the expression previously mentioned by the police in e\i deuce. Bradbury was not drunk, lie supplied no liquor to No. 7 bedroom. 'When Bradbury left the hoiw he was walking properly, just-as well as when he came to the hotel in the morning. Cross-examined: lie did nut see Bradbury froiu about 11 or 11.30 in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening, and during that time he did not know that lie had any alcoholic liquor whatever. Elizabeth Jane Emery, employed at the Taranaki Hotel as a waitress, rtmembered that B. had lunch in the dining-room with Russell and Miln that day. She was waiting ou their table. B. was sober enough to have a good

dinner. His "Worship said that he once saw a man wlm was very drunk, and his dinner consisted of a bowl of mint sauce and a pat of butter. Mr. Grey doubted whether a waitress would describe tluit as a good dinner. Augustus Melnues Bradbury, rcsiilin.: in New Plymouth, gave evidence thai on the morning of the 13th June he went to the Taranaki Hotel about halfpast 10 o'clock. He had souic drinks with others, his own being a concoction of hoek and soda, or something of that kind. He did not see the drink prcpaicd. Had luncheon in the house with Itusse'l and another about 1 o'clock. After luncheon, at the suggestion of Miln, he went upstairs to lie down, as he felt un- : well. Ilis heart gave him some trough', , and he had to keep quiet. Jie did not | think he asked the licensee about going : upstairs, or that he mentioned the mat--1 ter to him, or that he saw Bishop afkT I lunch. He was not assisted upstairs. He had no intoxicating liquor in thehotel that morning, but lie had had some before leaving home—a small bottle of beer. During the afternoon Miln brought in a bottle of champagne from another hotel. Had tea in a restaurant about 7.15 or 7.30 p.m., afterwards""'.'- 1 -] turning to the hotel. Witness was not alFoeted by the liquor he hail that day, but lie had had more alcoholic liquor during that week than perhaps lie should have had, and it affected his heart that, day. He mentioned that he had a sma'.l nip of gin from his own bottle just shortly before tea. He was not drunk—lie was more ill than drunk, and was in ( lie dot-tor's hands for quite a month.al'terv,arils.

Cross-examined: lfe thought he pinchased the bottle of gin just before lunch. His home was about ten minutes' walk from the hotel, lie remembered Millington caliingfor M. about 5 o'clock. A large and a small bottle of champagne and si little out of the botlV of gin was all the liquor consumed in the room before 7 o'clock. He made some remark to the sergeant to the effect that he was "a bit tight," but h<» could not remember telling the sergeant next 'lav (Sunday) that he had no recollection of Saturday night's incident. The Magistrate briellv reviewed the ease. He said that in a prosecution of this kind it was necessary to prove that the men were drunk and that the 'ieensee or his servant was aware of tluit fact. There was no evidence that ?.J. was drunk. There was a good deal of evidence alleging B.'s drunkenness when lie was taken away from the hotel at night, but none that he- was drunk in the morning, excepting Piiissell's statement that he was "pretty full." That evidence was not corroborated in air.' way. Tu fact, it was denied by several I witnesses. Tt had not been shown, | either, that the landlord had any knowledge of B.'s condition during the evenin'f. or even that he was in the house. 1!" wotihl believe tijie evidence of Bishop, nridhtuy. Proctor, and the waitress au'ain>l Russell's, and dismiss the information. It is probable- that, appeal proceedings will be taken.