LIQUOR CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1917, Page 2

LIQUOR CASES.

ALLEGED BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. At the New Plymouth Magistrate's iMagistrate'.s Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Ilenry Mulholland, licensee of the Rahotu Hotel, Rahotu, was charged with having, on July 31st, (1) sold liquor, to wit, 'whisky, to one William '.Sutherland McLeod, a person then >n a state ol' intoxication, and (•<!) permitted drunkenness on his premises on the same occasion. ■Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the defendant, and stated that in view of the cases recently decided as to the relations between a licensee and his barman, the defendant would plead guilty to .permitting drunkenness on the understanding that tile police withdrew tiie other charges. Inspector Mellveney said he would withdraw the charge of selling, a3 the defendant had pleaded guilty to permitting drunkenness, and he had no desire to ask for two convictions on the same facts. There was another information to be heard, however, one charging the barman, William Mulholland, brother of I the licensee, with supplying McLeod with liquor. His Worship said ho would defer consideration of the penalty on the charge to which defendant had pleaded guilty until he had heard the other case. William Mulholland was then charged with ha,ving'sold liquor to McLeod while the latter was in a state of intoxication and pleaded not guilty, Mr. Johnstone appearing on his behalf; William Sutherland McLeod, a returned soldier, resident at Opunake, gave evidence to the effect that on July 31st he was at New Plymouth, where he had a few drinks. In the evening he went by the same motor car that had brought him in, Mr. Little's, to Rahotu, having a couple of 'whiskies at.Sanson's Hotel, Okato, on the way. When he arrived at Rahotu he went into the bar. Ho was pretty well drunk at the time and did not clearly remember how many people were there. He did not remember much about it. He thought he had throe whiskies in the bar. served by defendant. He could not remember coming out of the hotel. ■ To Mr. Johnstone: lie was in more than one hotel in in New Plymouth on the. day in question, but could not say how many. He had no recollection of buying a flask of whisky at Sanson's hotel. Mrs. Sanson, wife of the licensee of the Okato Hotel, stated that when McLeod left her place he was perfectly sober. He had had two whiskies there. To Mr. Johnstone: .She fixed tho .date because she heard about the row at Rahotu next day. Charles Little, motor car proprietor at Opunake, gave evidence as to driving McLeod from that, place to New Plymouth and then to Okato and Rahotu. McLeod seemed all right at Okato and "niien they reached Rahotu he went into the hotel and there did not seem anything the matter with him. lie went into the bar alone, but witness went' in several times and saw him there with a glass in front of him. Eventually when defendant came out he was drunk. He was with two Maoris, but witness did not see them bring him out. McLeod was then arrested. Witness had not paid much attention to McLeod when ho got out of the car at Rahotu. m he simply left it and,walked straight into the hotel. To Mr. Johnstone: MeLcod's wife, a quarter caste .Maori woman, was with him but remained in the car while lie was in the hotel. I'ipi T.etterby stated that he was about the Eaiiotu Hotel from about 7.30 a.m. to 10 p.in. on July 31st. He remembered McLeod'coming into the bar in the evening. There were three or four serving in the bar. McLeod had some liquor and witness supposed he paid for it himself. Witness remembered McLeod having two drinks. Something happened and witness got him out of the -hotel. At that time witness was pretty full him•sclf. Constable O'Neill stated that his attention had been attracted to tho hotel by a noise, and on going there found McLeod very drunk indeed, being hardly able to stand. Witness arrested him on a charge of drunkenness and using' obscene language. Subsequently witness saw defendant 'when making inquiries into the matter, and obtained written statements in which defendant denied i having served McLeod with liquor, as he' was under tho influence of drink, and said he had told the other- barman, McFarlanc, not to do so either. Defendant alleged in ono of his statements' that McLeod had repeatedly asked for drink, hut on each occasion had been refused. To Mr. Johnstone: Tho defendant had persisted that he. did not supply McLeod with drink at any time on the evening in question. This closed the case for tho prosecution. Mr. Johnstone submitted that it was most improbable that McLeod was. as suggested, perfectly sober when he reached Rahotu, as ho had been drinking practically all day. Defendant noticed that •McLeod was under the influence of drink and refused to serve him. There was iy> evidence that the defendant had served McLeod, except that of McLeod himself, and he had said he could not remember much about what had taken place. William Mulholland gave evidence to the effect that he had repeatedly refused MeLeod's requests for drinks. Ultimately McLeod became angry and seizing a glass threw it at witness. The gla.ss smashed amongst the hottles on a shelf. To Sub-Inspector iMcllveney: The other barman, McFarlane. had told witness that he had not supplied McLeod with drink. When McLeod was taken, out of the hotel he was excited, but so tar as insobriety was concerned was tiie same as when ho entered. Witness had not seen anyone offer McLeod a drink. 'His Worship held there was not sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. He had no reason to disbelieve the do-, fondant's statement that he had not supplied McLeod M'itli liquor. \ciy likely he had obtained some drink, as there was a number of Maoris with whom lie had 'been fraternising in tho bar, but tho only direct evidence that the defendant scrVcd him was that of McLeod. who admitted that ho was very hazv as to what had taken place. The information would be dismissed. As to tho ease in which the licensee, Henry Mulholland. had pleaded guilty, through the act of the 'barman, to having permitted drunkenness. His Worship said it did v not appear that he had exercised sufficient supervision or control. He would be fined £2, with costs £0 10s.