THE McLEOD CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 123, 11 October 1912, Page 7

THE McLEOD CASE.

RESERVED JUDGMENT. ALLEGED LAMBING DOWN. PUBLICAN FINED £2O.

Reserved judgment was delivered at Inglewood yesterday by Mr. W. G. Kenrick, S.M., in the alleged "lambing down" case, involving several charges of alleged breaches of the Licensing Act against Mrs. Elizabeth Miller, licensee of the Tariki Hotel. Considerable interest was aroused over the case on account of the deplorable condition of the victim of the alleged "lambing down," Alexander McLeod, when he entered the New Plymouth Hospital, after having gone through over £4O in about four weeks. When the case was tried, evidence largely pointed to the fact that the lambing down had taken place before McLeod arrived at Tariki.

Senior-Sergeant Haddrell prosecuted, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone defended.

The judgment runs as follows: "The defendant is charged on three informations with selling liquor on or about July 3, 14 and 16, 1912, to Alexander McLeod, a person in an already advanced state of intoxication. She is further charged that'between the 2nd and 14th of July, 1012, being the holder of a publican's license, she did unlawfully permit drunkenness to take place on her licensed premises, namely, the Tariki Hotel. The evidence proves that McLeod arrived at the defendant's hotel suffering from heavy drinking, and that he remained in the hotel from about tho Ist to the 16th of' July, during whicli period he was supplied with a numbet of drinks each day. His condition became worse, and a doctor was called, who ordered him tf the hospital. Dr. Wylie says that when he' saw him he (McLeod) was in a critical condition, suffering from drink which ,must have been adulterated, judging from the symptoms. McLeod remained in this condition fer two weeks before he began to improve, and at the present date his memory is impaired. The licensee, I think, was justified in taking McLeod in, as he arrived in the evening on a nasty night, and the hotel is in an isolated position, so McLeod would have had little chance of getting a lodging elsewhere, at any rate in the condition he was in. But - the licensee was not justified in keeping him for two weeks, and giving and allowing him to be supplied with liquor, the result of which, it is made him in a very much worse condition than when he arrived. From her own evidence, the licensee must have been aware that her son and others were taking liquor to McLeod. She says she never took payment from McLeod, but admits she took £5 from him in the presence of witnesses, and although McLeod was a nephew of her late husband, I do not believe the liquor was given as a gift, in view of the quantity that was supplied to him during the fourteen days. It is proved that the licensee gave McLeod beef tea, also whisky and milk, to try and t pull him together, but the evidence satisfies me she knew he was being supplied with liquor a number of times a day. The shocking condition the witness Ashby described finding McLeod in, in the bedroom, and the state of the room, could leave no doubt in any reasonable permind .that he Should- riot ihavc .'been supplied with liquor, and should have been in a hospital long before. It is proved that r Mclieod left Awakino with a cheque for over £4O, also some bank notes. As far as he can remember, he cashed the cheque in Waitara, and £5 is all that was left in about three weeks. There is no evidence to prove that he had more than £5 when he arrived at the licensee's, in which case he must have got rid of his money at Waitara and Awakino. The evidence does not prove that the licensee gave large quan-tities-of liquor to McLeqd, but it I does prove that others gave considerable quantities each day, and that she jmust have known what was going on. X convict her 'on the two charges of sfclling liquor to McLeod when in an intoxicated condition, between July 2, 14 and In, and fine her £lO on each charge, together with costs, £O. in each case. I do not propose to endorse the license, in view of the fact that she is going out of the hotel, and other circumstances. Having convicted the licensee on these charges, the charges of permitting drunkenness will be withdrawn." < "

THE MISSING CHEQUE. Information relative to the missing cheque for £4O was given 03' SeniorSergeant Haddrell. The police had discovered, he said, that McLeod's cheque was cashed in Awaklno by a reputable business 'man, who gave McLeod a banknote for £5 and a cheque of his own covering the balance. A few days later both cheques were paid into the bank at Waitara. The police had been informed, added the Sergeant, that McLeod was gambling the night before he left Awakino. The man himself. However, could not recollect what he had done with the money. CASE AGAINST THE BARMAN.

11l connection with the same matter, John Mathieson, son of Mrs. Miller, and barman at the T.iriki Hotel, was charged on two counts with supplying liquor to McLeod while in a state of intoxication. At the sitting of the Court last month Mathieson pleaded n.ot.. guilty Ijp both charges. '

jl When the case was cajled yesterday, k Mr. A. 11. Johnstone, tlie defending eoun- '■ sel, said that in view of the reserved decision of the Magistrate convicting Mrs. Miller on similar charges, he had advised his client to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" aud substitute one of "guilty." Jn asking for leniency, Mr. Johnstone said that there was no suggestion that Mathieson had been influenced by any tbought of profit or gain in supplying MeLeod. Counsel also pointed out that Mrs. Miller had already been mulcted in ti heavy fine.

His Worship, in stating that lie would take as-lenient o. view of the case'as possible, fined Jlathieson 40s, with 7s costs, on the. first count, and recommended the police to withdraw the second charge. This Sen'or-Sergeant Haddrcll agreed to do.