'CANTANKEROUS!

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 198, 22 August 1928, Page 8

'CANTANKEROUS!

BARGEMAN DEMANDS HIS RIGHTS.

GIVES TROUBLE IN HOTEL.

COSTLY AFTERNOON IN PARNELL

Sometimes it does not pay to demand one's rights, particularly if you are drunk and not entitled to them.

William Daniels (54), a bargeman from Onehunga, found this to be so at the Police Court this morning when he was arraigned on charges of being disorderly while drunk in Parnell yesterday afternoon, refusing to quit the Exchange Hotel when requested to do so by the licensee, and with having used obscene

language. Accused, for whom Mr. Havnes appeared, pleaded not guilty.

Evidence was given by the licensee (Mr. McSweeney) and his son, a barman, that about 1.30 yesterday afternoon Daniels entered the hotel and called for a drink. This was refused, and he was told he had had quite sufficient already. Daniels became abusive and used some obscene expressions, so he was ordered off the premises. "Between 1.30 and 4 p.m. I ordered him out of the hotel about a dozen times," said the licensee. "He told me he would have a meal and a room if he liked and that he would buy me out before 6 o'clock." (Laughter.)

Both witnesses, under cross-examina-tion, denied that either had used insulting language to accused.

Sergeant Brown said that Daniels was in a cantankerous mood when witness and Constable Smith spoke to him near the hotel at 4 p.m. "He insisted on again entering the hotel and pushed past us, so I arrested him," said the sergeant.

Constable Smith said that yesterday afternoon someone told him over the telephone "that he was going to go into the hotel and book a bed," but he could not say whether it was Daniels who was speaking.

Counsel called Dr. Drier, who had examined Daniels about 6.45 last evening. The doctor stated that Daniels was then as sober as he was in the Court this morning. "From his appearance I would say that he could not have been drunk at 4.30 p.m.," added Dr. Drier.

Sub-Inspector McCarthy: Dr. Lindsay examined Daniels at 4.30, and has certified that he was drunk. You evidently disagree with him, allitough he examined the man shortly after his arrest?— Yes, I do.

Daniels then gave evidence. He denied that he used any obscene language. He stated that another barman told him that he was quite all right to be served, but that he could not serve him as he was instructed not to supply liquor. Daniels added that he was not drunk, having only had six nipg of whisky .yesterday. He had an appointment with a man outside the hotel and went in to pass the time away. When he was refused liquor he demanded to know the reason, complaining to the licensee, who ordered him off the premises. Later he went back to the hotel to see if his friend was there. When again ordered out and told by the licensee that he would call the police, accused said that he went to the Parnell police station himself, but found 110 one in the office. He telephoned the station later and told the constable that he intended to go into the hotel to book a room and have a meal.

Sub-Inspector McCarthy: Hotelkeepers are like other business people— always looking for customers—so there must have been some reason for the licensee refusing to serve you with liquor?—l was not drunk.

You were cantankerous and you resented being refused a drink, so you got your back up and demanded your rights. What did you want a room for? I could claim a room and a meal from a hotel.

Not when you arc drunk. Mr. McKeaii: Daniels' explanation is one that does not impress me at all. I a in quite satisfied as to his condition and that there was 110 conspiracy on the part of the licensee or the police. I also prefer to accept the evidence of Dr. Lindsay, who examined the man at 4.30 and found him to be drunk.'' Mr. Havnes said that Daniels was a bargeman and lived at Onehunga. He had never been in trouble before. The magistrate fined Daniels £1 on the first charge and £2 on each of th<> other two counts.