TROOPS AND DRINK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 44, 22 February 1915, Page 8

TROOPS AND DRINK

LICENSEE CHARGED ALLEGATIONS RESPECTING TAITA HOTEL. WAS THERE DRUNKENNESS ON THE PREMISES ? Owing to the fact that several members of the Expeditionary Force encamped at Trentham were concerned, particular interest and importance a,ttached to * ease heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Thomas Park, licensee <*t the Taita Hotel, was charged, on ■'■wo informations, with selling liquor on Sunday, 7th February, when the premises were directed to be closed, to Privates Joseph M'Gowan and George Page. A third charge was that Park permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises on the following day (Monday, Bth February). Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. T. M. Wilford represented the defendant, ' who pleaded not guilty. It was agreed to take the charge of permitting drunkenness first. Mr. Ostler said that the charge was kid under section 181 of the Licensing Act. On the date in question, Lieutenant Bell, in charge of a military picket, visited the hotel in the afternoon, and found six or se\en soldiers from the Trentham Camp, mostly absent without leave, in a state -of helpless drunkenness. Constable Wilson was the first witness, and stated that on 11th February he visited the Taita Hotel and inspected the lodgers' book, and none of the names of the soldiers concerned had been entered. The Taita Hotel was three or four miles from any other licensed premises. The plan produced showed the boundaries of the licensed premises. Mr. Wilford : Where did you get the book from ? Witness : The licensee's daughter. Under what warrant did you take the book I—l1 — I had specific instructions from Superintendent Ellison. When did you take the book away? — On my first visit to the hotel. How many visits .did you make to the hotel ?— -Two. Did you find any soldiers' names in the book? — Yes, there were some names. Did you find out that some soldiers had stayed at the hotel as long as three days? — No; I didn't enquire into that. Lieutenant Bell Btated that on Bth February he was in charge of a military picket about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The picket left Lower Hutt to go to the Taita Hotel, reaching the hotel about 5.30. There were six men in the picket. At the Taita Hotel witness first of all went to the entrance to the bar, and enquired for the proprietor, and defendant came forward. Witness asked if any of their men, meaning soldiers, were about. The licensee replied "Yes," stating that they were probably about in the garden. Witness went into the room opposite the bar, and on a couch he saw a soldier asleep and drunk. The man did not have a pass, arid was placed in one of two taxis which were waiting outside. While witness was looking after this man he instructed the picket to go round the grounds. A little later witness went into the grounds himself, and the first thing that met his eye was a man stretched out in the middle of the lawn, apparently in a drunken sleep. Elsewhere in the garden he found a soldier in conversation with a civilian, who was asking to see his pass. An expired pass was produced. This soldier had been drinking, but was fit for duty. During a conversation the licensee said he was anxious that the picket should secure one man, who was giving 1 a great deal of trouble. That was the man on the lawn, who was subsequently taken and placed on a taxi. The man's name was M'Gowan. The licensee's wife, on one occasion, asked that M'Gowan be leniently dealt with, as he had behaved like a gentleman. She made a similar request in regard to Private Earker, who was brought round from the rear of the premises. Witness enquired as to whether there were any more men, arid the licensee's wife said there were some in the whare at the back. Here two soldiers were found, both drunk. One had to be supported, he was so bad. The other might have walked, but he was not fit for duty. Both men were given in charge of the picket. The licensee expressed the opinion that he was very glad the picket had come, and offered to give every assistance possible. To Mr. Wilford : Witness saw the soldiers in the whare himself. Their names were Davidson and Saver. Both men were helped to the wagon. One was actually in need of assistance. As to the man asleep on the couch, witness did not wake him, but left that to one of the picket., Witness did not see him taken^ from the hotel to the car. Before reaching M'Gowan on the lawn witness had to cross the drive, anil go through a gate under an archway. M'Gowan took a great deal of waking, and was assisted to the car by a member of the picket. Two soldiers had their hands secured by rope. One was caught in the act of going upstairs, and witness suggested that the other was biought out of the hotel by the picket. Witness returned to the camp in a taxi, and his prisoners included Private Reid and another. Mr. Wilford : You have a special military definition of drunkenness, haven't you ? — Yes. What is your idea then?— When a, man is unfit for duty. Do you have cases where men are quite unfit for duty, but who would not be arrested in the street? — I think that if a man is drunk in the military sense, he is also drunk in a civil sense. Are you a Prohibitionist or a NoLicense advocate? — No. If a man had had a couple of drinks and could shoulder arms, but was a bit lively, would he be drunk in a military sense? — I have never seen a man drunk on two drinks. When M'Gowan was charged with drunkenness, didn't he protest? — Well, he- argued a bit. You consider he was drunk because yon went through his pockets without waking him? — That, and from my own observation. Continuing, witness said that he was certain M'Gowan was drunk. He found the hotel clean and apparently well-kept. Everything was quiet. Mr. Ostler : That is what you would expect if the men were dead drunk. hit. Wilford : You are biased on the drink question. Mr. Ostler i So are you. Mr. Wilford : No, I am not. lam a Moderate. " Cross-examined by Mr. Ostler, Lieut. Bell stated, that, in'Tegard to M'Gowan, Reid, aJid two others, they were not only drunk in a military sense. Corporal Neville, a member of the picket, gave evidence as to finding lavo privates, Bain and Cutts, in a small outhouse. Bain was very drunk, but Cutts was not so bad. To Mr. Wilford : Witness could not 6\vear that either Cutts or Bain had ever entered the hotel. He knew nothing about a taxi arriving at the hotel previously. Have you any special military definition of drunkenness?— No; when a man's drunk, he's drunk.^ But if a man is unfit for military duty, you »ay he is drunk 'i—lt he k

unfit for such duty I should say he was also drunk in a civil sense. Privates Johan&en and Rennie also gave evidence as to the finding of men in a drunken state m various parts of the grounds. Private Rennie said that two men in the whare were lying on the ! floor drunk.. Mr. Wilford (to Private Rennie) : Will you say definitely that those two men were drunk? — They were drunk under military law. What do you mean by military law? — They were unfit for duty. Private Kearney stated that it was he who awoke Private Reid inside the hotel. Reid was pretty well drunk, and witness picked him up and carried him to a van which was waiting. To Mr. Wilford : He would not say that Reid was altogether drunk. Mr. Wilford : That satisfies me. Private M'Gowan stated that he left the Trentham Camp on the previous Saturday with a man named Page. The pair took a car to the Taita Hotel, and Page told the licensee's wife that they had leave for three days, and that they were going to stay at the hotel. Witness had several drinks on Saturday and Sunday, but was not drunk on either of those occasions. He was drunk on Monday. He was quite sure that Page told Mrs. Park that they were going to stay. To Mr. WilfoTd : Witness slept at the hotel on Sunday night only. It was not the only time he had been arrested for drunkenness. He was arrested on a similar charge only yesterday. He could take between 12 and 15 long beers before becoming drunk. ■ This closed the case for the prosecution, and the luncheon adjournment was taken. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Wilford said it would be necessary for him to call several witnesses in order to prepare the ground for legal defences. But before doing that he would contend, on behalf of his client, thatth-i prosecution had failed, or neglected to prove, to what premises the license applied. The prosecution could have produced a register to prove what constituted the "licensed premises" — whether for instance, the outhouses were included. In Reid's case his defence was that the man was a boarder. If his Worship was satisfied that Reid was drunk, there was no proof that he obtained the liquor at tho Taita Hotel. In regard to all the other men, there was no proof that the outhouses and grounds were in the premises licensed. He would not say that outbuildings were not included in " licensed premises " ; rulings had been given that they were. However, in that particular instance the prosecution had not given any proof, rho onus on the prosecution was, clear. The property was thirty acres in extent. The first witness for the defence was Private Drinnan, of the Camp Military Police. He stated tl.it on Monday, Bth February, he was on police duty, and attended the Taita Hotel, not as one of the pickets. He arrested two men, Privates Davidson and Sever, in a room at the back of the hotel, • where there was a bed and a sofa. The men were actually charged by the officer in charge of the picket. Both men walked to the wagon unassisted, after they had been started 'on their way. They were drunk in the military sense. If ho saw them as civilians he would not Stay they were drunk. They were capable of looking after themselves. Both men had broken camp, being absent without leave. Thomas Pack, licensee of the Taita Hotel, stated that he had had a considerable amount of trouble with the soldiers, his place being the first and last call for soldiers going to and from the camp. When the picket called on the Bth inst. he was in the bar. On that date he had several military men. In' some cases — on the Bth, for instance — there was an entry in the lodgers' book which read simply "Soldier." Often they did not give any name. "Ellison" and "Williamson" were both soldieis, but he did not think they had given their correct names. There were four soldiers on the books, but none of them had given, the proper names. Since the trouble took place he had tried to ascer. tain who the men really were. He recollected hearing that a man wae asleep on the sofa. He was probably on the book as M'Leod. He knew of no man by the name of Reid. M'Gowan did not get drunk on hie premises. He .could not identify, by their names, two men found in the outhouse. The whare referred to was the men's sleeping quarters. Witness did not know they got inside. There had been cases of people coming from Lower Hutt and going to the outbuildings without going near the hotel. Witness had been in occupation about twelve months. The man found asleep on the sofa had paid for a bpd for nso on Monday night. To Mr. Ostler : Reid came to the hotel on Sunday,' and was entered in the b&ok as Whittle. Mr. Ostler : Did you see the military police bring a man downstairs who was drunk? — No. Now, be careful ! This is a man whora we have heard nothing about so far. I have evidence to call. Did you see a man brought downstairs ? — No. (Proceeding.)