Observing a Prohibition Order.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4278, 16 September 1882, Page 2

Observing a Prohibition Order.

At the Police Court yesterdry Wm. Frederick Mason, licensee of the Imperial Hotel,, was charged, on the information of Constable Dunn, with committing a breach of the Licencing Act, by supplying liquor to Patrick Kelly, well knowing that an order had been issued by the Justices of the Peace prohibiting the sale of liquor to the said Kelly.—-Mr Miller appeared for the defendant, who was ill in bed, and unable to attend, and pleaded not guilty. It appears that on the night of the 12th mat., about 10 o'clock, an old shoemaker named McDonald, and Kelly, went into the Imperial Hotel; the former obtained two half pints of beer, one of which he took to Kelly, who stood in the passage, away from the bar, out of sight. Mr J. B. Mason, who was looking after the business, for his son, had refused Kelly drink during the afternoon. He regarded McDonald's

movement with suspicion, and was in the act of going to examine into the matter when Constable Dunn appeared upon the scene. The man in blue had been keeping a wary eye upon these two devoted worshippers of Bacchus. He had entered into conversation with Kelly, and scented beer in his breath, and knowing that a prohibition order was standing against him, set his wits to work to puzzle out the connection of the man with the beer. Had the man gone to the beer or had the beer come to the man; if the former hypothesis were correct, where did he go for it..?, if the latter, who brought At ? Watching the movements of the parties and weighing the evidence with all the care of a Latter day scientist, the balance fell unmistakably in the direction of the latter supposition. Observing the pair go into the Imperial he set out double-quick on the trail, and as previously indicated there was a happy meeting.

During the hearing, Mr Miller contended that section 170 only referred to proof of sale at a particular unauthorised time, and not to aoy particular person. It only applied where the fact of the sale was the gist of the action, as in cases of selling liquor after hours or on Sunday. Here the evidence showed that the liquor was not sold to the person prohibited at all, but to another man, who handed it to him. For all Mr Mason knew, he might have been carrying it to some person a mile away, for which,'if i that person was' prohibited, the licensee co>uld not be liable. It was hardly likely that Mr Mason, after refusing Kelly liquor, would give it to another person, knowing that he intended to carry ifc to Kelly.

His Worship said an important question was whether the licensee had exercised sufficient vigilance as to the persons to whom he sold liquor, knowing that prohibitory orders were in existence. He took it that it was the positive duty of the publican to ascertain whom theliquor he, supplied was intended for when these orders were about. He had no wish to construe the Act too harshly, but to admit Mr Miller's argument would be simply to make it a dead letterj if that by any prohibited person putting a friend forward to ask for liquor the publican was to be exonerated from liability. The section gave considerable discretionary power to the Court in the way of looking into the whole circumstances of the case to ascertain whether the liquor was knowingly sold to a prohibited person. In pronouncing judgment, His Worship said that, taking Mr Mason's evidence, it appeared he had done his best 'to ascertain whom the liquor was intended for, but before he could prevent its being drunk, the constable had stepped in. It was a fair presumption, that when a man was taking liquor outside it must be for a person who could not come in himself, and, therefore, it was reasonable to expect publicans to ascertain. Mr Mason having done so, the case would be dismissed. McDonald was evidently liable for having knowingly taken the liquor to Kelly, and proceedings should be taken against him.

At the Court, this morning, before Dr Kilgour and Mr H. C. Lawlor, J.P.s, James McDonald was charged with procuring the liquor for Kelly.

Constable P. J. Dunn deposed that on the 12th inst. at 10 30 p.m., he saw Kelly and a man whom he did not recognise go into the Imperial Hotel; followed them in and found Kelly in the act of drinking half a pint of beer; the other man cleared out. Mr Mason was behind the bar and. drew his attention to the matter. The door leading into the passage was open. ■' Mr J. B. Maaon deposed be was in the bar on the night of 12th; McDonald came in and asked for tiro half pints of beer, and paid sixpence; saw McDonald take one of them towards the door, and he followed around to see what he was going to do with it. Found the door leading from the bar locked, and bad togo around another way, and by the time witness got out, the constable had Kelly in custody and McDonald had vanished. - , ■ ' Patrick Kelly deposed that he had known McDonald 15 years, and had been intimate with him. during,the past, 12 months. Met him on the night of the 12th, and gave him half-a-crown, to get witness some tobacco, which he did., Told him to shout, and tuey went into the Imperial Hotel, and had two half-pints ; McDonald paid for it. The girl could not see witness from behind the bar. Went in again after-a short time and had another drink. McDonald paid for that also. Constable Dunn then came.in, and arrested him. ' ' McDonald pleaded that he was not aware of the existence of the prohibition order. ....... ~ The Bench fined McDonald 20s, -as this was the first .case of the. sort,; and allowed one month to pay it in,'and if not then paid a distress warrant to issue.