WHERE WAS HARRIS ?

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14146, 23 August 1909, Page 6

WHERE WAS HARRIS ?

CASE AGAINST A PUBLICAN

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED.

The hearing of the charge, against James Sidney Palmer, licensee of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, in Upper Symonds-street, of permitting drunkenness on his premises, was concluded on Saturday, when, after the hearing of some further evidence, Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., dismissed the case.

Evidence was given by the licensee's wife, who stated that she had been in charge all day of the l-oom where liquor was privately sold, and; had not seen Harris (the man who was arrested for drunkenness) once. In fact she had seen no man in the room at any time during the day. In his previous evidence, Constable McKay, who had arrested Harris, had stated that his attention had been drawn to the man's condition by a licensed victualler. Constable McKay was put in the box again on Saturday, and asked for the name of this publican by Mr. Earl. He at first refused to give the name, but, on being ordered to do so by tho- Bench, stated that it was Mr. Victor Cornaga, proprietor of the Queen's Hotel, opposite the Edinburgh Castle Hotel. According to witness, Cornaga had pointed out Harris to him on the evening in question, and had said, "Look at that drunken man who has come out of that house. Look at the state he is in. That is the sort of thing that gets us publicans who endeavour to obey the law a bad name." This closed the evidence. Mr. Earl, in summing-up, commented on the fact that Cornaga, the only person who could corroborate the constable's statement, had not been called by tho police. The evidence showed that no conviction could be recoi'ded against defendant, and he, Mr. Earl, therefore asked that the information be dismissed. Mr. Kettle said it was not his purpose to give a written judgment, as he did not think that any further consideration of the evidence would alter his opinion. The faots of the case were as follows:—The defendant was licensee of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel. Opposite to his house was another hotel. Defendant was charged with having permitted drunkenness on the evening of July 5, between 6.15 and 7.30 o'clock. The prosecution- did not suggest that defendant himself was a party to any drunkenness that may have taken place, nor did the prosecution allege or try to establish the fact that he was in any way negligent. What they sought to establish was that the barmen had permitted' drunkenness. The onus of proof in a case of this kind lay on the prosecution, and the judges of our Supreme Court, as well as those of the English Courts, had all held that hi cases of this kind clear and convincing proof must be forthcoming, evidence that was thoroughly reliable, and the Court would not draw inferences from these facts unless they were thoroughly established'In the present case, Mr. Kettle said, he was not satisfied that the evidence had proved any case. One thing established was that Harris, the principal witness for the police, was, when arrested between 7.30 and 8,. on the footpath outside the hotel, in an advanced state of intoxication. . The question was, where had he got the liquor that had made him so drunk? Harris had admitted that he had gone into the Caledonian Hotel and had two drinks there. He had stated he was sober' then, and had arrived- at the Edinburgh Castle Hotel at 6.15 p.m., sober. He had been, supplied there with one small glass of beer. All of defendant's servants in the bar had sworn, positively that Harris had only been supplied with one drink, that he was then sober, and had departed immediately, and was not seen again. . The evidence "of the two barmen was quite clear on that point. Harris was then arrested, about art hour after. The question was, where was he in the meantime? As far as the evidence of Harris and Langham was concerned, it s was to his mind, Mr- Kettle went on to say, not evidence that any Court would act upon. Harris had not satisfactorily explained where he was, and what he had been doing. He (Mr. Kettle) had his suspicions, and' those suspicions allowed him to think that Harris was not in the Edinburgh Castle Hotel more than, a few minutes. The evidence bore a very strong suspicion that Harris : had filled in the interregnum in another hotel. Those who had served him in the Edinburgh Castle Hotel were not justified in believing him to be in a state of intoxication. It would be dangerous to draw an inference from all the surrounding'circumstances that the mam had been in defendant's bar for more than an hour and had been supplied with more than one drink. Mr. Kettle said that if he did that, he would have to hold that all the evidence of the defence was untrue. Such proof as that had not .been forthcoming, and so the information would be dismissed.