PROHIBITED PERSONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 April 1916, Page 6

PROHIBITED PERSONS.

SHOULD LICENSEES KNOW THEM? AN INTERESTING COURT CASE. The responsibility of licensees in regard to supplying liquor to prohibited ■persons was involved in an interesting case which was hoard by Mr. A. Croolie, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. William G. Emeny, the licensee of the Royal Hotel, was charged with serving a prohibited person with liquor, and Mr. A. Tl. Johnstone, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. The circumstances of the ease were that a woman went to the Royal Hotel at seven o'clock one morning and asked the licensee, who was in the bar. for a shilling's worth of brandy for a sickman, adding, after awhile. "If you canj I give me a bottle to hold two shillings' worth I will take that, so as to save me coming 'back again." The licensee had never seen the woman before, and he served her iu the ordinary way. But when the woman got outside she met a constable, who recognised her as a prohibited person, with the result that the sick man had to go without his brandy, and the licensee wis asked to explain why he s-.ipp'ied the woman. The licensee had received notice that tlie woman was prohibited, lmt he .pleaded that he did not know that the woman whom he served was the owner of the name on bis "dry list." The facts concerning tlie woman's prohibition and the serving of the liquor were admitted, but, asked Mr. Johnstone, Jiow did Emeny know that the woman he had served was prohibited? . Sub-Inspector Foully emphasised thai Emeny was furnished with the name and address of a woman, Mr, ?r,knitted that knowledge of tiie woman's address did not furnish reasonable opportunity for the licensee to identify the woman. The woman went into the hotel in the ordinary way and was served without suspicion. She was not a well-known wo. man; if she had been a familar figure about town an hotelkceper might be" expected to know her. But a publican served hundreds of people in a, day, and how was lip to know that any particular person lie served was prohibited if he had never seen that person before? Tf this were insisted upon it would mean that a publican would have to identify every customer lie served to ensure his beinorjsafe. Sub-Inspector IJouliy: The licensee (Should have asked tlie woman if sbe was prohibited,: The Magistrate: What, the licensee would have to ask every woman who ciame into bis hotel if she was prohibited before he served her? And supposing the licensee had made himself acquainted with this wolmu at the time she was .prohibited, it dees not follow that he would recognise her afterwards. To my mind, this is an extremely doubtful case, and I hesitate to .say that it was the duty of the licensee ;.o go and see .this woman when she was prohibited. I don't think I can find it is incumbent 011 a licensee to do this.

Sub-Inspector Fouiiy: There is surely some onus cast upon a licensee. In this ease the licensee, after receiving the notice that tlie woman was prohibited, took no steps to acquaint himself witli the woman.

The Magistrate remarked that each case must be dealt with on its own facts, and this being a doubtful case, he would give the licensee the benefit of the doubt. The charge was dismissed.