THE LICENSING ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16508, 25 March 1914, Page 7

THE LICENSING ACT.

SELLING LIQUOR TO DRUNKEN MEN. LICENSEE OF SHADES HOTEL FINED. William John Larcombo, licensee of the Shades Hotel, was charged before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., yesterday, that on February 23 ho had permitted drunkenness and had sold intoxicating liquor, to wit, beer, to two drunken men. Mr Hoban, for the defence, said that tho selling of beer was admitted, but the two men had entered the bar while the barman was absent, and he found them leaning against the bar and served them. Jt was not till they lett tho support of the bar that he noticed they were drunk, and he immediately turned them out, and when interrogated by the police made a clear statement, which was the principal evidence for the prosecution. Mr Hoban added that drunken men were getting very cunning, and often leaned against the counter to simulate soberness. Sub-Inspector Mr.ckinnon said that tho two men had been ten minutes in the hotel, and were so drunk when they emerged that they were immediately arrested and subsequently fined. Mr Bishop remarked that it was astonishing to him that barmen, who really pledged the conduct of the licensee, did not tako greater precautions. He did not know much about hotel bars (he did not frequent them), but he thought there should be no difficulty in detecting drunkenness, even supported by tho bar- It was surely not suggested that the last glass finished the men. ' ■•'■'! do not suggest that," said Mr Hoban. "Then it is gross carelessness," said the Magistrate, " to supply a man who is so drunk that immediately ho reaches I tho street he is arrested. There are marvellous conditions in life in connection with the administration of the Licensing Act that you do not see in . every-day life. I must see that these men take better precautions. It is in their own interests. Every act that leads the public to take notice of certain peoplo is a reflection on the whole traffic. At any rate if I had a barman like that I would get rid of him. I have only to say I endorse the license and there he is. However I am not going to do it in this case." Mr Hoban asked that the first charge should be dismissed, as the licensee had no personal cognisance of tho drunkenness. In the case of Ema'ry v. Nolloth, 2 King's Bench, 1903, it was so laid down. Mr Bishop asked why the authority had not been quoted earlier in New Zealand. Mr Cassidy remarked that it had. been quoted, though not in M'Rcbio's case, the well-known case in Dunedin. Mr Bishop remarked that the point would have to be thrashed out. The trouble was that if the interpretation was correct, tho publican had only to sit back and allow as much drunkenness as ho liked. It meant opening the door to very serious abuses. However, he thought the first charge miaht be withdrawn. Tho Sub-Inspector agreed to withdraw the first charge, and on each of the other two Larcombe was fined £3 and costs, with witnesses' expenses.