LICENSING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 75, 30 March 1899, Page 2

LICENSING CASE.

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED

The licensee of the Anchor Hotel, Samuel McPherson, was charged at the Police Court yesterday with permitting drunkenness on his premises. Sergeant Clarke conducted the prosecution, and Mr Baume appeared for the rlofcnce, pleading not guilty. Sergeant Gordon stated that on the evening cf the 14th inst; he and Constable 'McDonnell went~into the bar of defendant's hotel and saw two men there, one of whom was very drunk. Witness came out again and entering by the side door met defendant in the passage, took him into the bar and showed him the drunken man. Defendant addressing both men said: 'The sergeant says one of you is drunk.' One protested that he wtisn'l drunk, and while doing so lost his balance, pitched forward, and nearly knocked the defendant over. Witness told the defendant he was liable to be proceeded against for 'permitting drunkenness on the premises. After a few minutes witness and the defendant went outside again, find the barman getting over the counter pushed the drunken man out into the street, where witness arrested him Next morning the man, whose name was Owen Carroll, pleaded guilty at the Police Court to a charge of drunkenness and was fined 10/ and costs.

Co? istable McDonnell corroborated.

The. facts of the case were not disputed, so no evidence was called by the defence. Mr Baume addressed the Court, contending that the" mere presence, of a drunken man in the hotel did not mean that the defendant was permitting drunkenness. In such cases there must be clear evidence of a 'mens rea' on the part of the licensee, and in the present case there was no evidence of knowledge on the defendant's part. There was no evidence that Carroll had been supplied with liquor, and the only evidence there wa's went to show that the man was in the hotel for a minute or two.

His Worship in dismissing the information said if he did not convict the defendant of permitting persons in a state of drunkenness upon the premises it was because he was satisfied that the defendant had no actual knowledge in the matter. In all thes.3 matters it was necessary to weigh the evidence with especial care, and, at the same time, although the penalty war. severe, the severity of it did not ir.fluence his decision. His Worship said he hoped hotelkeepers would not understand by his decision that they could permit or allow persons in a state of drunkenness about their premises, for, if they did, they would come within ■ the section. It was important to the community that order should be observed in publichouKes. The information would be dismissed . . ■