police v. PUBLICAN.

NZ Truth, Issue 182, 12 December 1908, Page 6

police v. PUBLICAN.

. — __» PERMITTING .DRUNKENNESS ON PREMISES. Did the Sergeant Have a Snou on Shirley? A Port Chalmers Pub Pother. There is no doubt that Michael Dynan was drunk on the afternoon oh Saturday, October 31. Also, it is indisputable tuat Dynan the drunk was m the bar of tbe Provincial Hotel, Port Chalmers, on i/iiat date. But there are two other points about the' affair that are not' an> thing like as clear as mud: (a) Did Frana. .Shirley, the licensee, .know thai the deplor.ib&e Dy-nan was hi the bar. before -.the pouce drew pointed attention to the distressing fact ? ; (b) How long had the said Dynan been m the liar when discovered by -the heagle heye of the Law ? These two questions have, been surrouiided by as much mystery and suspicion as the dark interior of an unexplored pork sausage. ' MrHutchison was called on to wrestle witli the problem at Dunedin Police Court a day or two ago, when Frank Shirley was charged with having permitted drunken- ' ness on his licensed premises on ttie date I mentioned. j Inspector O'Brien prosecuted, and defendant pleaded not guilty through his lawyer, Mr Hay. The evidence proved interesting m more ways than one, for it showed tuat cieieni dant and Sergeant Mullany — wbo was responsible for the prosecution— are scarcely as thick and thin cobbers as David and Jonathan of old were.'. In fact, if nothing on earth but a long sleever from the Provincial would save the Serjeant's life, it's a good gamble"that the publican i wouila lock up his bar and cheerfully watch j the peeler expire. And, on the other j hand, " we can hardly bring ourselves to believe that Shirley is included m the list of those on whom the Sergeant calls down blessings when he • kneels m his nightie every night and piously says his prayers like a good, faithful policeman. I SHIRLEY RECENTLY ItEPUKTED MULLANY . . to the Inspector for something or other, and it was suggested by. the defence that the prosecution was the outcome of spite or revenge, an insinuation, which was repudiated with vehemence by the force. According to Muflany, there was a gay . old beano m full blast m , the Provincial I bar. that Saturday afternoon. After seeing various assorted, "shickers" leaving the pubbery, and hearing sounds of revelry or riot inside, said the Sergeant, he entered the .booze dispensary at 5.5 p.m., and a glad and : festive scene met his wide-open optics. About 30 firemen and seamen from vessels m Port were holding a conversazione after the • fashion of their kind, and Shirley and a bar-lady were wrestling with the frequent and refreshing demands to fillemupagen. Amongst the crowd that had been called to the bar— .or had breasted up without waiting to be called— was the much-debated- Mick Dynan". And Mick, it was alleged, was disastrously tanked— screwed up to the eyelashes and fuller than a tick.- He was just able to keep his pins from collapsing, but was swaying backwaras and forwardslike a captive balloon m a breeze. Continued Mullany : "I said, 'Do you see this man, Mr Shirley ?' Shirley replied, 'Yes, but he is not drunk.' I saicl: '1 consider he is drunk and far tod drunk to be on licensed premises.' " A mate started to take Dynan away to his boat, but after seeing him m the street Mullany had him arrested for drunkenness and using ob-j scene language.' In Court on the following Monday Michael pleaded guilty to having neen sosselled, but remembered nothing about the unlovely language. Mullany, m reply to the Inspector,., declared that there was no obstruction/ m the bar to prevent Shirley from seeing the condition of Dynan. Defendant had repeatedly been' cautioned for permitting drunkenness on his premises ayd a charge nad previously- been brougjit against him. In, reply to Mr Hay, Mullany admitted that the/charge was dismissed. Mr Hay : T£<_ licensee and you are not very good friends. He has reported you to the Inspector, has' he hot ? Mullany : Yes, I understand he has reported, me, but action was taken against him 'before I knew he had reported me. Mi? Hay : Would you contradict three witnesses if they state- the licensee was r -at the other end of the bar when you entered ?— I quite believe that you could get 20 or more witnesses to state that. Mr Hay : What do you mean by that ? Do you mean that a number of men would come into Court AND PERJURE THEMSELVES to get a publican out of'trouble ? J Witness : I am sure you could not get ja respectable, sober man to say what !you state. I To Inspector , O'Brien, Mullany stated i that m consequence of what he was told and what was observed, he watched defendant's house particularly. « Mr Hay : Did you watch it particulari ly because the licensee had reported you ito the Inspector ? Is it not a fact that I you blink at the doings of other houses i while you are looking after this one* '.' Witness : That is not the case. This particular house requires more supervision than all the other houses of the port put together. Ido not watch the house because the licensee reported me. Cops. Smart and Fraser were also called for the prosecution. In ouening the defence, Lawyer Hay-ar-gued that the police evidence was slightly colored (he didn't specify what color ! said evidence was dyed) on account of i some enmity between defendant and the ' Sergeant. The 'Sergeant, no doubt, had heard of the licensee reporting him to the Inspector. This brought a repudiation from the : Inspector : -'-'The Sergeant .could not have

known of the report at the time he laid the charge," declared O'Brien, "1 assure the Court of that." Mr Hay then wanted to know how it was, if there were so many drunks about on the Saturday afternoon, that the police records did not show it ? The Magistrate : Do you not allow the police some discretion m the matter of arrests ? Mr Hay : Yes I do, but I don't believe m the police coming to Court and giving colored evidence. The police allege that a great noise was coming from the hotel bar, but if that was so, how is it that when the police entered the place they did not find more drunken men ".' The Magistrate : The men may ' have been m a merry mood— they were, perhaps, only half full. ■ ' Mr Hay admitted that might have been so, but he protested that it was a very improper remark for the Sergeant to say that twenty of such men were prepared to perjure themselves. He added that defendant, the 'barmaid and other witnesses I were prepared to swear that not more than two minutes elapsed between the time when Probe tt and Dynah entered the hotel and the time the police arrived. A certain amount df latitude had to be allowed a licensee to get a drunken man off the premises. The bar at the time was crowded and Dynan had his back to the counter when the police entered and the barmaid would swear she did not see Dynan come in.' ' Charles Probett, Thos. Duffy and Thos. , Rogers, ship's firemen, and Christina Walker,- barmaid, gave evidence for the defence as outlined by Mr Hay. The firemen said the police entered about a minute after Dynan and defendant was serving at. tluv top end -of the bar. There i were people betwp.en vfche barmaid and i Dynan and there were about 40 men m '.the bar. ,' Defendant, -who has had the pub. since April last, denied that HE SERVED' DRUNKEN PEOPLE with pongelow., He did serve ' persons who had bad a little liquor when he first went into the pub., but that was before he was summoned on a previous occasion. He did. not know Dynan was m the bar until his attention was called to the fact, and then he -ordered 'him out. it was a common practice for the police to enter bars m Port Chalmers and draw attention to any men "under the influence" and such men were at once emptied out. The Magistrate said there was no doubt Dynan was dnink, but it / was probably the case that he entered the bar during tlie few'minutes that the police were away at the railway station to meet tbe train. "The conclusion T have come to," added the beak, "is that 'Dynan could not have been ou t|ie premises more than four or five minutes before the police came m. The question., therefore, is this : Did the licensee know pi his pre-euce *_ The evidence all goes to show that the bar was m a crowded state, and under these circumstances there is a doubt whether the licensee had seen him. 1 shall therefore dismiss the information." And Shirley went on his way rejoicing.