A LICENSING CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1612, 21 January 1903, Page 67 (Supplement)

A LICENSING CASE

FINE FOR PERMITTING DRUNKENN ESS. At the Magistrate’s Court, Carterton, before Mr W. P. James, S.M., on the 13th, Henry Franks, licensee of the Royal Oak Hotel, Carterton, was charged, at the instance of the police, with having permitted drunkenness on his premises. A plea of not guilty was entered. . Inspector Ellison conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Atchison appeared for the defendant.. The proceedings were taken in consequence of information received, and investigations made concerning evidence given at an inquiry into the cause of the death of James Sweeney A who was found in a dying condition in the yard of the defendant’s hotel on 12th November. At the inquest in question, the jury returned a verdict that the deceased came to his death by alcoholic podsoning, and added a rider that no blame was attachable to any person. The jury also stated that Mr Franks deserved credit for refusing to supply liquor* to deceased on occasions, and expressed the opinion that if all publicans would do likewise there would he fewer of these unfortunate deaths. From evidence forthcoming, it appeared that Sweeney was suffering from tho effects of drink on the 11th November, and he was supplied with more liquor. He was seen lying in the hotel yard at 9.30, and at 30.30 that night, and also at 4.30 next morning. At 7 o’clock on the morning of 12th November he was picked up in a dying condition by the licensee’s servant. The defendant was away from the hotel when the liquor was supplied to Sweeney, hut it was alleged he was informed at 30 o’clock on the night of lltli November that a man was lying in the yard. The defendant denied haring been informed that a man was lying in the yard, and evidence was given to the effect that Sweeney was not drunk on tho' night of 11th November, and did not get drink. Tho Magistrate held that the licensee had, through his agents, permitted drunkenness, and that Sweeney had been served with liquor when he -mould not have been. The defendant was fined £2, with £3 14s costs, and his license was ordered to he endorsed.