PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13303, 9 October 1906, Page 7

PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS

THE FITZROY HOTEL CARE. THE DUTIES OF PUBLICANS. The reserved judgment of Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., in the licensing prosecution in which George Tayor, licensee of the Fitzroy Hotel, in Wakefield -street, was charged alternatively with supplying a man named Joseph Poland with whisky, he being already intoxicated, and secondly with having permitted drunkenness in his hotel, was given yesterday. '.' -- : t -• In delivering judgment, Mr., Kettle said that the Legislature intended that the two offences should be separate and distinct. j The serving of an intoxicated man with drink would be permitting drunkenness, but there may be cases in which drunken men may be allowed on premises where no liquor was served. He did not think the charge of .supplying whisky had been fully established, and he dismissed that case. In reference to the second charge, Mr. Kettle said : " The licensee is a man not fitted to hold a license, and I feel quite sure the licensee must feel that' himself." He (the magistrate) was satisfied that Poland was in a state of ' drunkenness when he went into the hotel, and in such a state as would render the licensee responsible if he allowed him to remain any appreciable time on his licensed premises." The course of a licensee in .such circumstances was simple. All he had to do was to order the man out, and if the man refused to go the, licensee should ring up the police, or eject" the man himself with the assistance of the barman, or anyone who was at hand. The defendant, did' not dc that. He was satisfied defendant must have known, or ought to have known, that the man was in a state of drunkenness. The defendant Jrnew that sufficiently to refuse the man drink. It was preposterous to say the man went to bed'at eight because he was tired. It was quite Slain that the man was in a drunken condition, and the defendant, allowed him to remain on the licensed premises, instead of sending him away, or asking the man's friends to take him away. He commented strongly on the publican's conduct up till the time the police arrived. He convicted the defendant for .permitting drunkenness on hie licensed premises. The (eircumstances were peculiar, no doubt, and he asked for the counsel's opinion on the question of endorsement. Mr. McVeagh, who appeared for the owners, the Great, Northern Brewery Company, said there was already one endorsement on the license, and a. second would be a very serious matter. The defendant, Taylor, was going out of the hotel, and a transfer was being effected at once. Mr. Kettle: Will you ,give me your assurance that it is a bona-fide transfer? ' Mr. McVeagh: Yes. The object of tho Act would 1 be served and the public interest guarded against by the transfer. He submitted His Worship would he justified in using his discretionary power by not placing an. endorsement on the license. Mr. Earl (for the defendant) pointed out that the man Poland was* a respectable person, and it was to his benefit that he should be allowed to stay on the premises, and not be put out in the street. The man was a stranger, and the defendant had committed an act of carelessness in permitting him to stop at the hotel. - Mr. Mays (who appeared for the prosecution) said 'the defendant had had warnings. If there was to be ii bona-fide transfer it might do some good, but, it was certainly time the defendant (Taylor) was out of the hotel. Mr. Kettle said the circumstances were exceptional. Taylor had no real interest in the hotel. He did not wish it to be .under- ■ stood that because this was a case in'which no endorsement of the license would be made that it should be taken aS a precedent. The view he took of tho whole circumstances of the case was that Taylor's conduct wa6 the conduct of a man who was inexperienced and careless. The .consequences of endorsement would be serious. Having regard to the fact that the. license, was. to be transferred, he did not think he would be justified in endorsing the application. He declined to' endorse the license, but fined the defendant £5 and costs.