THE LICENSING LAWS

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 79, 3 April 1901, Page 2

THE LICENSING LAWS

AN HOTEL-KEEPER'S RESPONSI-

BILITIES.

Yesterday afternoon Mr. Brabant, S.M., gave judgment in the case, Police v. Timothy B. O'Connor, in which the latter, as licensee of the Victoria Hotel, was charged with having permitted drunkenness-on his premises. Mr. A. Blair appeared on behalf of the Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. J. E. Reed for the defence. The particular act complained of was the selling- of ' intoxicating- liquor1 to a man named Murphy, and permitting him to remain on the premises. The defendant was away at the races at the time, having charge of a booth there, and a barmaid had been left in charge of the bar. For the defence it was alleged that the barmaid was not in charge at the time, and that the liquor supplied was not intoxicating. These statements were denied by Sergeant Forbes, and His Worship said it was impossible to believe the defence on the facts, and he coxild only pass the statements over, as had often been clone in similar defences raised in licensing cases.

The legal defence raised was that although the defendant's barmaid supplied liquor to an intoxicated man, and the defendant might be convicted under section 146 of selling to a drunken man, ye«- he could not be convicted of permitting drunkenness, as ho personally did not permit it.

His Worship said that in the case of Somerset v. Wade (1894, 1 Q. 8., 574), quoted for the defence, the circumstances were quite different. The licensee had supplied a person with drink whom the ."Justices decided from the evidence was drunk, but they believed the licensee's statement that he did not at the time he served the liquor consider the person drunk. Under the circumstances they did not convict, and were held to be right. In Bond v. Evans (21, A.8.D., 249), also quoted, the circumstances were somewhat' similar to the present case, except that it was gaming the servant of the licensee permitted, and not drunkenness. In Edmunds v. James (17 Q.8.D., 132) it was decided that a licensee selling liquor on his premises to a drunken person is liable to be convicted of the offence of permitting drunkenness, and at _ all events since the case of Police Commissioners v. Cartman, there seemed to be no doubt that where the servant of a licensed person does an act or omits to do an act within the scope of his employment, then tlje licensee is responsible for that act or omission. The Lord Chief Justice had pointed out that if it were otherwise the object of the section (one similar to section 14G ,of our Act) would be defeated. Here the barmaid was in charge of the bar, and it did not matter' if she were in charge of the whole house or not. Further, His Worship was inclined to think that serving ginger ale to a drunken person to be consumed on the premises, and allowing him to remain in the bar, would be permitting drunkenness, though that Avas a point it was unnecessary to decide in the present case. The defendant must be convicted.

Mr. Reed, for the defendant, tirged the Magistrate to dismiss the information under the terms of the Justices of the Peace Act. The licensee would suffer great hardship if a conviction were recorded, for a conviction must be endorsed on the license, and under the terms of his lease an endorsement of the license meant the defendant's expulsion from the hotel. Considering that the defendant had been absent at the time the offence was committed, and therefore not morally responsible, it would be a great hardship if he were deprived of his livelihood in consequence of the conviction being recorded. If the Magistrate convicted he had no option, but to endorse the license, but he could dismiss the case under section 87 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

His Worship said he would like to give the Inspector of Police an opportunity of giving his opinion on the defending counsel's application, and the case was accordingly ordered to stand over till to-day.