SPECIAL TELEGRAMS,

Evening Star, Issue 11251, 26 May 1900, Page 3

SPECIAL TELEGRAMS,

WELLINGTON. May 20 Owing to the police throughout the colony being unable to avail themselves simultaneously of the holiday proclaimed by the Government for the public rej doing over the relief of Matching, the Cornmiasiouer (Mr Tunbridge) has arranged that one day shall bo added to each man’s annual leave in the current year. Even the solemn dignity of the Supreme Court is occasionally illuminated by u ray of humor. Yesterday the Chief Justice was occupied with a case from the little town of Pahiatua, in which the main issue involved was the question whether or not a m»u named John Farrelly was under the influence of intoxiciting liqnor when he was supplied with more drink by Thomas Brown, a hotelkeeper of that ilk. This is a question which furnishes material for endless controversy. As the Chief Justice remarked inter alia, probably no two men could be found on this earth whose definition of the word “drunk” would be absolutely identical. It had been held, s>id Sir Robert, that a man was not drunk so long as he co ild speak. Mr Bell wanted a'judicial decision on the knotty point, hut the Court was not to be drawn at that stage.' One patriarchal witness with a soft, mellifluous accent and a setting of white hair round a full, jolly face, evaded the too pressing cross-examination on the question of Farrelly’s inebriety with the cautious reply : “ Well, I’ve seen many men sobereraadl’veseentnanydcuuker.” Coum-el (Dr Findlay) collapsed into his seat Another bucolio witness swore that he himself was perfectly sober on the occasion in question, in proof of which he said ho had gone home after putting down a dozen whiskies and milked seventeen cows. The fact that the witness had beeu able to keep tally of twelve whiskies was accepted as indubitable evidence of his unquestioned sobriety, but a third gave the show away by declaring that Farrelly was “so drank that he couldn’t possibly get any drunker.” The case was an appeal from a judgment of the local S.M., who had fined Brown, a hotelkeeper at Pahiatua, on the information of Constable 0. Bowden, for supplying liquor to John Farrelly whilst the latter was already intoxicated. It was alleged by Brown that Farrelly was sufficiently sober on the occasion. The judgment will be looked for with ! interest, as it may throw some light on the recondite question “ When it a mats drunk ” in the oyo of the law J