THE LICENSING LAWS

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 43, 19 August 1918, Page 8

THE LICENSING LAWS

CHARGES AGAINST A LICENSEE

AND A BARMAN

In the Magistrate's Court this morn-ing,'before-Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M./AVilliam.Earl, barman at the Midland Hotel, ,an'd'Joseph.JDwy.feVj." licensee, of the hotel, were' charged with'selling beer to a person already in a state of intoxication. Mr. J; J. M'Grath- appeared' for Earl, and Mr. M."Myers for the licensee. Inspector Marsack prosecuted.

Sergeant Mathieson .said that about ' 1.30.p.m.. on 10th July he saw n- drunken man' on Lambton-quay,- going towards the'-Midland Hotel. "The man and his mate entered the "bar of,the hotel, and witness followed them in. He saw the drunken man, Nilsen, standing in tho bar, -with a glass of-beer in front of-him. 'Earl, in answer to a remark' b(y witness, admitted that he served the man, who was put out of the bar and arrested for drunkenness. Later, Earl said tho man appeared to be sober when he served him. He did not see him coming in. Had he seen him coming in he would not have served him, but would have turned him off the premises. Earl added that there were twenty-seven men in the bar, and he was busy. . , ; To Mr. M'Grath, witness said he did not arrest the" man before he entered the hotel, because he appeared to be capable of taking care of himself and to geUto the boat where he was employed. He believed the man was going to the wharf, and he followed the man into the hotel-as quickly as possible. The liquor had. not. been touched. The time between witness seeing Nilsen going into the bar and his finding him supplied with liquor was sufficient to allow the barman to have a look at the man.

In answer to Mr. Myers, witness said the hotel was well conducted; particular-ly-that portion facing Lambton-quay and Johnston-street. The, bar. in Waring Tay-lor-street, where Nilsen was found, was frequented -by sailors and wharf labourers, and was well conducted considering the class of -customers. Witness did not arrest Nilsen before-he entered the hotel, though he was drnnkL-.and., making a noise, but he arrested him after he came out-of-the hotel, and-when he was quiet.

. Constable' Lake said that Nilsen was very drunk when he was taken into the police station. When Earl was spoken to he said that when lie had. supplied Nilsen with the beer he could see he was drunk. Nilsen was not fit to take oare of himself when witness saw him. FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. M'Grath contended that if the police sergeant, who saw the man on the,'quay, considered he ..was capable of taking care of himself, it was not fair that the barman should be charged with, having supplied a drunken man. The bar was crowded, and it was impossible for the sergeant to say that the. drink was in front of the man Nilsen. The "defendant, Earl) said' he did not see"Nilseh"enter, the;bar. .'When he first saw him lie was at the counter with an; "other-man." '.' The other-man called for ..two. beers and. put a. two-shilling piece on the counter. Witness drew one glass and put it on the counter, and gave him Is 9d' change. It was the man who was not arrested, who paid for .the drink and who was served with it. Nilsen had not been: served with, any' beer. He had not noticed -thai? Nilsen was drunk, and was about to supply him with beer when the sergeant came in. Nilsen did not speak. . .' . _ .- .. In answer toi the Magistrate, defendant" said'he'did 1 Hot* tell the police that he 'had not served Nilsen.

To Mr. Myers, witness said that when, the affaar happened .the defendant Dwyer was not pn the premises, having gone tout- for the day. ■ Witness was to have been off duly that afternoon, and he had received no instructions to be in the bar. He had no right to be there, but, had changed with another man •without the sanction or knowledge of • oither Mr., or Mrs. Dwyer. The defendant D-wyer said he had held a iicenso in Wellington for sixteen years, and had not a" single conviction against him. His hotel was next to the Police Station. He was yery strict in the management, of-the hotel. On tho day in question he was away from the hotel from about 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m., leaving Mrs. Dwyer to look after the house. ,Earl was the cellarman, and relieved the 1 barman 1 for lunch: He reprimanded Earl for changing his half-holiday without permission. He had no right to be on the • premises that' afternoon.

• For-the'defendant Dwyer, Mr. Myers submitted that Earl was not the licensee's authorised agent, aud had no right to be on-the premises on that occasion.

Mr. M'Grath contended that Earl had no right to bo on the premises,' but ho had acted honestly and fairly, and had no opportunity of discovering the condition of the man.

FINE INFLICTED

His Worship. said! a barman was required to exercise, most extreme care, although of course it was possible that mistakes might happen. No doubt Mlsen had straightened himself up when he got into the bar, and Earl, through inexperience or being in a hurry, did not notice his condition. It showed the danger of- a barman- allowing himself to be "rushed." He would''be convicted and fined 40s, with"7s: Conrt costs. Mr. M'Grath: A fine of 40s is rather a serious thing these times.

His Worship: It is an ActHhat has to be observed. He regarded a fine of £2 as a reasonable punishment for carelessness, which should' not be encouraged. As to the licensee, he said Earl was recognised: by the licensee as a bar attendant, and if without the knowledge of th& licensee he changed dutie* with another man, he could not see how the licensee could escape responsibility for his acts. As the offence was not serious, and defendant had not had a charge against him before, he thought it was a case that could be. dismissed..