BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9588, 4 September 1913, Page 7

BREACH OF LICENSING ACT.

AN AWAHURI CASE.

At (he Feilding Magistrate's Court, yesterday Win. Arthur Flynn, licensee of the Awaliuri Hotel, appeared before Mr J. W- Povnton, S.M., charged, with permitting drunkcunc.-s or his premises on August 19, and serving Thoe. Stuart with liquor whilst ho was in a state of drunkenness. Richard Stuart, foti of Tlioe. Stuart, stated that when his father left home on tile morning of AuguH 19th he was sober. When next lie saw his father, about mid-dav, ho was muddled, and on his return homo about 6.30 p.m. witness found him drunk. Later Sergt. Bowden arrived, but hi# father, in his drunkenness, failed to recognise him. Under cross-examination, witness stated that two bottles of beer purchased at the hotel had not been touched w hen the sergeant arrived. John Smith stated Stuart was in the hotel bar about 1 p.m., and at 5 p.m. witness had a drink with him. Stuart was not sober at that time.

Mrs Stuart, eenr., stated her hu.\band had been drinking heavily for three weeks previous to the date of the alleged offence. Witness corroborated tho evidence of her son regarding the condition of her husbind on the nrrivaKof Sergt. Bowden. A couple of days later Flynn called on witness, who wrote to Sergt. Bowden, asking that any proceedings againrt her husband should bj stayed. For doing this, Fl\riti gave witness a letter in which he agreed not to supply her husband with liquor. Both letters were produced in Court. When witness's husband went to the hotel he had a cheque for £l4 18e 4d. and ho told witness that Mynn did not give him any change. Her husband told her he had rejieatedly treated all present at the hotel. 1

Sergt. Bowden gave evidence that on hit visit \o Awahuri he found Stuart at his house in a state of abusive drunkenness. Under cross-examination, witness stated he had never received any complaint as to the manner in which Flynn conducted the hotel. Thcs. Stuart stated ho went to the hotel several times during the day. and had drinks with Smith and Henden-on. amongst others. Tho latter took witness home in the side car attached to a motor cycle, but witness walked back to ?!)<• hotel again. He was not sure how many bottles of beer he l-jok home. Witnes.; stated he could not rememl>or much of what happened during the day. but was sober enough to walk home after 5 o'clock.

bor the defence, Mr Inncs drew attention to the sharp contract which existed between serving a man in a'state of intoxication and serving a man in a state of drunkenness. The latter charge was made against Flynn, b;it the* had led no evidence to show that Stuart was in a state of drunkenness whilst i;t tho hotel. An important point to l>e considered was tho lapse cf time between Stuart's leaving the hotel and his arrival nt hi* home. It was shown that. Stuart hud taken In-er from the hotel, and it. was thai he had broaclied tue liquor on his way homo, and consequently Itoeame intoxicated. To succeed, tho pro- * ft: I ion should show not only that Stunrt v.as drunk on licensed premises, but that hie condition was known t« tho licensee. In evidence, \Y. A. Flynn stated there wore a number of people in the hotel on Augurft 19, as it was tho day <* f the general meeting of the dairy factory suppliers. Witness was in the bar during the afternoon, and Stuart had only three drinks l>-twecn 4.30 and the time of his leaving the hotel, 5.30 p.m. Stuart look away (wo bottles of beer, and was quite sober "when lie left tho hotel. Regarding vhe cheque, witness stated ho had cashed a cheque for £l4 add. out of whi h ho deducted an account owing bv Stuart. and also £2 4s 6d owing t>y Smith, who was working for Stuart, and ho handed Stuart tho Ixdance in cadi. When fie saw Mrs Stuart witness voluntarily airroed to refuse to supply Stuart, with more drink, lie did not express regret for haying served a drunken man. Smith told witness that Stuart was sober when ho left the hotel.

Evidence on lvhaif of the defence as to Stuart s condition was «dso given by K. Seiwyn, A. Harris, E, Hcndeiron, T). Weston. and 11. Hughes, who all deposed that Stuart was sober when lie left the hotel at 5.30 p.m. Mrs Flynn paid she was in tho bar from -2.30 to 4.30 p.m.. and during that time Stuart, had two drink.- only. Ho was perfectly sober.

His Worship considered that Stuart, was drunk wh.-n he left the hotel. A conviction was recorded, with a lino of £5 ami £1 4s witnesses' expenses.