LICENSEE FINED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7849, 11 July 1911, Page 2

LICENSEE FINED

. PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS. THE CASE AGAINST F. Vf. . McPARLANI). Francis W. McFarland, licenses of tho Hotel Cecil, was charged before Mr W. G. Riddell, 5.M... in the Magistrate's Court yesterday with having, on June 16th, permitted drunkenasess on licensed premise©. • Sub-Inspector Sheehan prosecuted, and Mr J. J. McGrath appeared for defendant. Sergeant Fitzgerald stated that about £.30 p-in. on tho date in question ho visited the dive bar of the Hotel Cecil in company with Constable Smart. He noticed a man named Slater leaning against the wall in a helpless state oi druukcnncus. He called the barman’s attention to the man’s condition, and the barman ©aid he hiid - not supplied him with drink. 'Witness asked why ho had permitted the man to remain on the premises, and the barman replied that he had tried to put him out two or three times.

Constable Smart gave corroborative evidence. John Slater gave evidence in regard to a visit paid by him to the Thistle Hotel, but could not remember having been in tho Hotel Cecil at ail. Mr McGrath submitted that there- was no case for the defendant to answer, L it was not for what his client alleged was tile importation of one word into thconversation, no action could have been brought. Both the sergeant and constable said they did not know whether or not the moji was permitted to stay co the premises. The licensee or anybody else -could not prevent a drunken man from straying, or falling, into the bar unless he stood continuously nt the door. It was not an offence on the part of the licenses for a man to be drunk in a bar. There must bo negUgeuc-e or connivance. Counsel asked that his Worship d'smise the information without calling on the defendant.

His Worship considered there was a Case for the defendant to answer. Tho defendant, in evidence, stated that

every precaution was taken against the occurrence of drunkenness on the premises. It was the duty of the barman to refuse to serve anv person who showed the slightest trace of liquor, and if a man came into tho bar in a drunken condition, it was the barman’s place to eject him. ■ , Edward George Malloy, baviiian, stated that Slater came into the bar about 5 p.m. in company with another man. Ho was drunk and witness would not serve him. Slater and bis companion then left the bar at witness's request, but .returned about 6 p.m. On this occasion ho refused to leave and witness forcibly removed him. Shortly afterwards witness was relieved and returned to duty just before 7 p.m. tie did not see Slater in the bar when he left and did not notice him till tho police drew his attention to him. He was sure the man was not in the bar ten. minutes beiore the police arrived. George . MbWhirter Jamd Alexander Aitken also gave evidence. _ His Worship said there was no doubt that defendant himself was not aware that tho drunken man was on the premises, but the man was found in tho bar. It was the- duty of every licensee to take care that drunken men were not found on their premises. If they permit led them to bo on the premises they wore liable to a penalty. It was perfectly clear that the man entered tho bar between 6.45 and 8.30 p.m. It was the duty of the barmam to keep a sharp lookout, and on this occasion where tho man had come in twice previously he might be expected to come back again. It was his duty to see that the .man did not return or that no other drunken man came in. This man was not served with liquor, but it waa not necessary for tho'purposes of a prosecution that he should lie served. His Worship did not think tho barman had taken the precautions he should have taken. Ho might bo a good barman, but on this occasion he acted carelessly and his employer must‘be held liable. A conviction would bo recorded, but in view of , that no beer was served to the man a heavy penalty would not bo imposed. He would be fined. 40s, with costs 9s.

Mr McGrath asked whether his Worship held that the fact of a drunken man' being; found on the premises was sufficient to secure a conviction.

His Worship said it was the duty of the barman, if a drunken man came into the bar, to eject him. If a drunken man was'fmind on the premises and the barman was shown to have acted carelessly, the licensee was answerable. Mr McGrath asked that the penalty be increased from £2 to £5 in order that the licensee might appeal on the matter. This was the first time the defendant had had anything preferred against him, and it was an important matter to him. Counsel asked that the penalty be increased in order that defendant might bring a general appeal. The fine was increased to £6. Subsequently notice of appeal was served on the informant on behalf of the defendant.