BEHIND A BAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 8987, 9 March 1915, Page 4

BEHIND A BAR

WELLINGTON HOTEL OASB SETTLED. “Can a licensee be punished for per-i mitting drunkenness upon his premises when he was unaware that such drunkenness existed ?” This was the question put to Mr D. G. A. Cooper, S-M., iul the Magistrate’s Court some time ago,j when Christopher Jansen, licensee ol'j the Wellington Hotel, was proceeded against for allowing drunkenness upon’ his premises. Defendant had on thatj occasion pleaded not guilty, and after hearing the evidence, Hia Worship dis- | missed the information on the grounds that there was no evidence given on : behalf of the informant that the re-! spondent, while absent from the premises, had delegated his authority as licensee to the barman; that having no knowledge that a drunken man was on the premises, he could not in law ba convicted of permitting drunkenness thereon; and that he was not responsible for the wrongful act of the barman. The police appealed against the magisterial decision, and Mr Justice Chapman, who heard the appeal, in his judgment referring to the grounds of dismissal, said he could not accede to them as a proposition of law. Evidence of delegation of authority was never given, and would seldom he procurable. The delegation would be inferred from the outstanding facts. It xvas enough to show that the barman was there, and presumably was placed there as barman by the licensee. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the magistrate. The case came np for further con* sideration in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr M. Myers, together with Mr J- J- McGrath, appeared for the defendant, and Inspector Hendrey for the police. Inspector Hendrey did not press for 1 a penalty; only for a conviction. There was, he said, no question of blame aa far as Mr Jansen was personally concerned ; he kept his house very well. The magistrate concurred that it was rather hard on Mr Jansen, xvho had been practically blameless in tile matter. He would enter a conviction, but in the circumstances he xvould impose a nominal penalty of 20s. ,