HOTELEEPER BEFORE THE COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11434, 26 July 1900, Page 3

HOTELEEPER BEFORE THE COURT.

'; * '.WHEN IS A MAN DRUNK?' - 4 vj, CHARGES DISMISSED. .; y < At the Police Court, yesterday, before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., .Robert Scott, licensee .of : the Royal Mail Hotel, appeared in anstvor to two charges laid under tho Licensing Act, the first of having on July 18 pormitted a person who waa in a drunken state to be .upon his licensed promises; and another of having, on tho same day, supplied liquor to ono John Jones, who was already in, a drunken state. The Crown Prosecutor (Hon. J. A. Tolo) conducted the prosecution, and 'Mr. ¥. E. V Baume appeared for the accused, who' pleaded not guilty. Tho charges wcro heard separately, that of pormiittiug drunkenness upon, the premises being taken' first. Mrs. Jones stated that her husband loft home perfectly sober on the morning of tho 18th inst., about ten o'clock. Between noon and one p.m. sho went to the Royal Mail Hotel and found him lying across a bed in an upstairs bedroom. Ho was in a heavy sleep, and she was unable to arouse him. She went out to try to get .a relative to ■ bring him home, but boiug unablo to find the person, reported her trouble to the police, with tho result that Sergeant Forbes went to tho holol. Sorgeant Forbes stated that in consequence of a statement made to him by Mrs. Jones, he went to tho Royal Mail Hotel about two p.m. on July 18. Ho was directed by defendant to a bedroom, and found Jones lying on a bod helplessly drunk. Defendant stated ho had come to tho house drunk the previous evening, and had stayed all night. Witness put several questions to Jones in defendant's preseuco, and managed to extract from him that ho had returned to the hotel about ten o'clock, and had had sovoral drinks. He also stated ho had not been in any othor hotel that morning. Witness had no doubt whatever that tho man waa drunk. Constable Dart, who accompanied tho sergeant, gave corroborative evidence, and was equally positive that Jones was drunk. Mr. Baume, for tho defenoe, raised tho definition of tho word " permit," and said that to "permit" implied knowledge; none of tho evidence for the prosecution had shown or attempted to show, that the licensee know anything of tho man's condition. Mr. Tolo said tho onm of showing that defendant had no knowledgo lay with defendant himself, quoting several cases in support. He. further pointed out that the evidence which ho had called showed that defendant had knowledgo of Jones' condition, for ho directed Mrs. Jonos and the police to the room in which the man was. His Worship held there .was a case to answer, and Mr. Baume put tho defendant in the box, who stated that .when Jones camo to tho betel, about cloven o'clock, ho was perfectly sober. They had a drink together, and witness went down the street, and did not return till shortly boforo Mrs. Jones came to tho hotel. He swore Jones was not drunk when tho police eamo to the hotel, and said ho did not recollect making the statements which they attributed to him. His Worship said the evidence of tho liconseo put quite a different complexion on the case. Tho question was not whether Jones was drank, but whether defendant had knowledge of his condition. . Permission implied knowledge and bona-fide ignorance was a good defence. He thought he must accept dofondant's oath that ho did not know the man was drunk. He dismissed the case. Tho change of supplying Jones with liquor whilst already drunk was next proceeded with. Besides tho evidence already called, Mr. Tolo called Walter Scott,' who boarded at (ho Royal Mail Hotel, and who had a drink with Jones on tho morning in question. Jones camo with witness to his room for a chat, and lay down on witness' bod to rest; but not becauso he was drunk. Witness donied having mado an altogether different statement to tho police. John. Jones, called by Mr. Tolo, made a statement corresponding with that of the previous witnesses, but stoutly maintained that ho had been sober throughout. Under cross-examination, his recollection of many of tho circumstances sworn to by other witnesses was very vague. , George Oliver, carpenter and joiner, said ho met Mrs. Jonos on tho afternoon of tho 18th inst., ami at her request went to tho Royal Mail Hotel about three o'clock for the purpose of fetching her husband homo. Ho would not say that when ho eaw him Jones was entirely drunk, but bo was not really sober. In company with Scott, ho had a drink wnh Jones, in order to humour him, and then took him home in the 'bus. Aft*" the luncheon adjournment Mr. Baume called the evidence of Miss Scott, sister to defendant, who said that Jones was apparently quite sober when she served him and Oliver with drinks as they wore leaving Mr. Scott was not present nt tho time, and did not drink with them. The defendant rave pinwlar evidence, and George Huddlestone stated he saw Jones on his way home in Oliver's company, and that ho then appeared to be sober. , ... „„ His Worship reoalled Oliver, but his previous evidence was unshaken. In delivering judgment, His Worship said the case hinged on Jones' state between half-past two and three «,»., when the drink was supplied by Mies Scott, At two thoy had the evidence of Sergeant Forbes. ml a onstable that lie was drunk; yet ho himself swore he was sober, and' Scott who saw mm So downstairs, also took him to be quite sober In His Worship's opinion, a man might be in full possession of his senses at So o'clock although quite Oniric only an lour before. Ho therefore concluded that ££,«** drunk when tho dnnk was served, and dismissed the case.