INTOXICATION AND DRUNKENNESS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 8

INTOXICATION AND DRUNKENNESS

Opinions In Court

Definitions of drunkenness and ij l ' toxicarion caused some amusement in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday, when two witnesses expressed their "opinions concerning defendant's state ol’ sobriety. The case, which was dismissed, wars one in which a tram conductor was charged with being drunk on a tramcar in Lambton Quay. Mr. J. ID Luxford, S.M., was on the bench. , . The magistrate: Do j’ou understand the difference between a state of intoxication and being drunk? Witness (a tramway Inspector) : Ao, not as far as I know, except that a man who is drunk is more intoxicated than one who is intoxicated. Do you follow me? The magistrate said he was atraia he did not follow witness. Witness: Well, an intoxicated man is stupid and a drunk man is worse than that , , , ■ ' The magistrate: Was defendant “worse than that”? —“Yes.” . Later in the proceedings the constable who made the arrest and laid the charge was called to give evidence, and the question as to whether defendant was drunk or not again arose. In the course of his replies to defendant’s counsel, Mr. J. Meltzer, witness said he knew when a man was drunk. He had had two years’ experience and during that time had arrested about 45 men.

Counsel: How did you know the first man was drunk?

Witness: When a man is prone on the footpath and has to be carr.ed back to the station on my shoulder I think I am entitled to consider him drunk. You were on a good wicket that time. —“Yes, I was in the Mt. Cook district then.”

At the conclusion of the police evidence the magistrate said he was not going to call for the defence. The <ase was one for inquiry by the tramway department.

“There are certainly good grounds for investigation,” be said.