Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5598, 3 February 1879, Page 4

The recent drowning case at the Bakaia railway bridge has had a sequel. That sequel shows the difficulty of convicting publicans who supply liquor to intoxicated persons. At the inquest on the body of the drowned man it was proved that the deceased just before his death was seen in the hotel, and about the hotel, in various stages of intoxication, from the incipient unsteady to the wildly lurching, and that his connection with the hotel extended on the day in question intermittently over a period of six hours. As a matter of course, the landlord of that hotel found himself before the nearest Magistrate charged with having committed a breach of the Police Ordinance which, amongst other provisions,, forbids piablicans from supplying drink to intoxicated persons. The barman, one of the witnesses, swore that poor Skae was net, in his opinion, drunk when he supplied him with liquor. Another mtness swore that he, too, did not when being served with liquor—Skae participating in the- festivity—think Skae was drunk. Both, on being pressed, thought, the one that Skae “ may have beefi intoxicated,” and the other that he was “ hardly sober.” The witnesses, who both swore that the man had been supplied with liquor, made a rather nice distinction. The barman, perhaps/has seen so many people drunk that he does not take note of a man’s condition until he is tery far gone indeed. Perhaps such a barman would only be convinced of the presence of intoxication by the inability to swallow liquor. Such a proceeding would to some minds argue either madness or intoxication. But we-have no means of ascertaining the measure of this barman's knowledge. It is enough that he admitted that the mafj may have been intoxicated, and that another man swore that he was hardly sober. In this condition he was proved to have been supplied with liquor. Yet the evidence was not sufficient for the Magistrate to convict. It might have been clearer, no doubt. It might,:fpr example, have been shown whether the paan had spent the greater part of the six hours in tho hotel in question, and, if so, whether he had' got drunk on, the recollections of “ healths five fathoms deep ” drunk in bygone and happier days. It might also have been shown where else ho could have got druhki and who supplied him with the hoike of brandy which was sworn to as in his possession by one o! the witnesses iat the inquest; and whether that -bottle was found on the body. The case could no doubt have been much .better got up. Still, tho charge was proved to reasonable satisfaction. That charge was-for supplying liquor to an ‘intoxicated person. Two ■ witnessesproved that liquor was supplied to him when ce was not sober A Magistrate must be very particular to require more proof than this; and fir Be ■ Grand Campbell seems very partioular indeed. J v