CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14143, 19 August 1909, Page 6

CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

EDINBURGH CASTLE HOTEL

CASE.

THE BARMEN'S STATEMENTS.

The hearing of the charge against James Sidney Palmer, licensee of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, of permitting drunkenness on his premises on July 5 last was continued before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday. Sub-Inspector Hendrey appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. F. Earl for the defendant.

James Sidney Palmer, continuing his evidence, said he could give no explanation of Harris' and Langham's statements that they were in the bar from about 6.15 till they went outside when Harris was arrested. Witness was absolutely certain that between 6.30 and 7.30 he had visited the bar, and he did not, on that occasion, see any sign of drunkenness on the part of any of the customers. The barmen did not get any commission on sales or bonuses on profits.

Ellen Molam said she was employed-by lefendar.t, and sometimes assisted behind the bar. Defendant had always been very strict in observing the provisions of the Licensing Act, so strict, that when witness ever saw a drunken man in the house she was always in a fever to get the man out. Witness was in the bar on July 5, from 6.15 till 6.40 p.m. During that time she observed no person in a state of intoxication.

John Taggart, barman in defendant's employ for the past 18 months, said he knew Harris and Langham. He had known Harris over two years. On the night in question Mies Molam and witness came on duty almost together at 6.15, entering the bar from different doors. Directly witness entered he served seven or eight customers. After lie had served some customers Harris called him, and asked for a couple of drinks. Witness recollected what Harris and his companions were talking about. There wag nothing irrational in their speech. Other people came into the bar, and witness served them. Witness did not see Harris either enter the bar or depart. Witness only served one drink to Harris on that evening. He did not see him again that night. It was impossible for Harris to have been in the bar after 6.30, drunk or sober, without witness observing him. The first witness heard of the. arrest of Harris was at 8.45, when Sergeant Carroll and Constable Mackay came straight into the bar towards witness and informed him. < The same night he was interviewed again by the police in the passage in company with Palmer. Next morning he had a visit from the constable. Palmer's evidence was substantially correct. To Mr. Kettle: Constable Mackay had said to Mr. Palmer, " I had to arrest him because there was a crowd of those prohibition people on the corner." To Mr. Earl: Witness knew Harris had had an attack of rheumatism two or three days before his arrest. The employees' instructions from Mr. Palmer were that if they noticed any sign of intoxication upon the part of a customer they were not only not to serve him, but also to put him out. He had been in the hotel business seven years, and had known no one so strict as Palmer.

To Sub-Inspector B'endrey: There was another place in the hotel where the men could have got drink without his knowledge. In that case Mrs. Palmer would have served them.

To Mr. Kettle: It was possible for the men to have gone down the passage to the back, and then returned through the bar without witness seeing them. About 10 minutes after lie had served them he noticed the, men had none. When witness served Harris with his beer there were no signs of intoxication whatever upon him. John Gibson, chief barman for the defendant, si id he had been in Palmer's employ since February, 1908. Witness had had about nine or 10 years' experience as a barman. Defendant was very strict in regard to the good conduct of his house. There was not a publican in Auckland who ran his house straighter. Witness received no commission or bonus on the of the bar. Witness remembered the night of July 5. Witness was on duty in the bar till 6.15, when he left for tea. There was no one in an intoxicated state in the bar then.

To Mr. Kettle: Witness was certain Harris was not in the bar then.

To Mr. Earl: He would swear positively that Harris was not in the bar when lie went back at 6.40, nor was Langham. He had not seen Harris either in the bar or in any part of the house at all that evening. It was impossible for , Harris or any other drunken man to have been in the bar for 10 minutes or more without witness observing him. , Evidence was also given by C. H. Harris and Constable Mackay, who were both recalled. and the case* was then adjourned till 9.15 this morning.