Barmen Must Not Supply Minors

Northern Advocate, 3 October 1938, Page 9

Barmen Must Not Supply Minors

Proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court, Whangarei, this morning, were a warning to barmen not to supply liquor to young s men

under 21 years of age, and, in doubtful eases, to inquire the correct . age before liquor was supplied. '

Edwin Reed, licensee of the Whangarei Hotel, and Norman Edwin Wilson, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, were both charged with supplying liquor to William Pitman’, a person apparently under the age of 21 years. Wilson was further charged with supplying Selwyn Eric Bradley, Morris Beasley, and Clive Coutts Elliott with liquor, all these three being apparently under 21 years of age. Several Charges. Allan Ramsay Lloyd and Alfred Ahlquist, barmen at the Commercial Hotel, were charged with supplying William Pitman with liquor, whilst Ahlquist was charged also with supplying Morris Beasley, Thomas Montreal was charged with supplying to Bradley and Elliott, The charge brought against the licensee of the Whangarei ‘Hotel was dismissed, owing to the inability to prove that liquor had been supplied. The charges against Montreal and those against the licensee of the Commercial Hotel in connection with Bradley and Elliott were adjourned until next court day. Mr D. L. Ross conducted the cases for the defence, pleas of not guilty being entered in each instance. William Pitman, Maori labourer, aged 20, giving evidence in the cases concerning himself, Wilson and Lloyd, stated that he had had about four drinks in the Commercial Hotel on June 4. He had gone there with several other men.

No Particular Notice.

Constable F. Davis stated that he had intei’viewed Lloyd, who, in a statement, declared that, while he had not particularly noticed Pitman’s age when the liquor was served, he was of the opinion, when seeing him during the interview, that he looked “rather young.” “I think the truth of the thing is that the barman was rushed at the time, and did not pay particular attention,” commented the Magistrate. “I would serve this man again tomox’row, as I feel any barman or licensee would do,” remarked Herman Edwin Wilson, giving evidence regarding the estimated ,age of the witness, Pitman. “This is the first time I have seen him, and I am quite definite that he has the appearance of a man over 21.” “I have never seen Pitman before,” declared Edwin Reed, licensee of the Whangarei Hotel, giving evidence on the same point. “If I had teen behind the bar, " I would have served him.” Hard to Tell Age. “It is particularly difficult to tell age in the case of Maoris,” maintained Mr Ross. “It is a matter for instantaneous decision. : At the lime, Lloyd thought Pitman was at least 21 years of age.” “It presents certain difficulties tc the magistrate,” remarked Mr Morris, "not so much as to age as to appearance. In the last resort, it is the magistrate’s opinion that counts. “One thing is clear in this case, and that is that it cannot be regarded as a serious one. The person supplied was only nine months short of being 21. The difficulty I see regarding Mr Ross’s point of view is that I am bound to try to get the barman’s state of mind at the time. Fine Imposed. “I think that where the barman was wrong was in that he says he was very busy and did not take particular notice. So far as the law is concerned, a barman must take particular notice of youths. I feel more sorry for Mr Wilson in the matter, but cannot help but convict the barman and the licensee.” Fines of £1 each were inflicted on Wilson and Lloyd, the magistrate remarking that this was indicative of the degree of seriousness. “I think this is the first case of this kind I can remember in Whangarei,” commented Mr Morris.

Case Dismissed.

Giving evidence in the charge against Ahlquist, in which Pitman was again the person supplied, SeniorSergeant Finch stated that Pitman had been arrested in the evening for drunkenness. Ahlquist had stated that he could not recollect serving Pitman.

Pitman, in evidence, stated that Ahlquist was the barman who had served him in the Commercial Hotel private bar.

“I am always very particular about young men." defendant Ahlquist stated. "I refuse to serve liquor to any I do not think are of age. I have never before been in court.” Tllo case was dismissed. Who Supplied Liquor?

Uncertainty as to the actual “supplying” resulted in the charge against Edwin Reed being dismissed. Pitman said he had gone into the hotel, but could not later point out the barman who had served him. His memory was not very clear about things at that time, he said. Two other Maori witnesses stated that they had been with Pitman. One said he was not sure if Pitman had been served, and the other said that the barman had refused to serve him.

as he was too drunk. “I agree with Mr Ross that this case should be dismissed,” remarked Mr Morris. “No one is able to identify the barman who is stated to have supplied the liquor. It is obviously not safe to convict under such circumstances. It would be a bad state of affairs for the licensee if a conviction was entered, and he did not know which barman to reprimand.” 17-Year-OM Supplied.

Alfred Ahlquist, charged with supplying to Morris Beasley, again declared that he could not recollect the person given liquor. Beasley, in evidence, stated that he was 17 years of age, and had gone into the Commercial Hotel bar with other men. He had not been questioned by the barman. The previous witness, Wilson, de-

clared that Beasley would create doubts if dressed in open shirt, as he appeared in court, but, with a collar and tie on, as he had when he went

into the bar, he would probably pass for 21.”

“I think this boy should have been spotted, i however,” remarked the magistrate, in fixing a fine of £1 on the barman and a similar amount on the licensee.

The other charges quoted were adjourned until next court day.