A PROHIBITED PERSON.

NZ Truth, Issue 214, 31 July 1909, Page 4

A PROHIBITED PERSON.

WAS ROBERTS ON THE RAZ'ZLE ?

"Warners" Before the Christchurch Bench.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PUBLICANS.

Graham Roberts, a prohibited remit 1 tance man, whose lapse into snicker was detailed m last week's "Truth," caused some disturbance amongst the "trade" by his atrest and conviction. It appears that Roberts used to go daily to the back bar of Warner's alleged aristocratic pub. and get everything he Wanted, even to bottles of whisky, and alth6uglx it is unusual to prosecute the publican for serving a prohibited person, Bung having lio knowledge of ' his casual customers, the poiice decided to make a horrid example of Warner's. James Baring Gould, the licensee, was accordingly Charged with supplying liquor, through his barman, John Statk, to one Graham Roberts, a prohibited person, whilst Roberts was m a state ot intoxication. . It appears that the day of the happening was July 15, and Kafhoririe Rose, wife Of Roberts, a lady of JfeWish" extfa'c-tic-ri and cast of features j stated that her dreadful hubby left h'din'c at Sumrier by the .10.1.1 tfaitt. He, had Been drinking heavily the night before, and that morning consumed nearly a bottle of whisky. He was rolling heavily as he walked down the street, and she was afraid he would take a fit before he reached the car. She complained that she had cautioned a number of pubs, not to serve him, but they PAID NO HEED TQ HER COMPLAINTS. In reply to Mr Cassidy (for the defence) she said she hadn't threatenefi to put Warner's up. Roberts himself said he was sober "When he came to town by the 10.11 akin, oaf,and made his way to Warjoer's back Mr, wh&re he called for a brandy arid port wine. While there, a man, whom he sub- 1 sequently discovered to be Peeler Dbuthett, entered, and called for at beer. They both got outside their drinks when Douthett touched him on the shoulder and remarked, "You are a 'prohibited person." The slop then turned to the barman and said, "Do you Know this man 1" The barman replied, "No." Roberts then observed, "Don't blame that man ; he doesn't know me fr6m a crow." Roberts and Robert left the pub', together, and the peeler said, "Come across the road I I'm not sure where I left my bike." Roberts fancied that the iron Steed was recovered reposing up against Dalgety's buildings, but his own unpleasant affairs were occupying his attentioa. at that m'otfteiit. Douthett then remarked, kindly, "Come up and sec Inspector GilJies," and they proceeded along the street, but Roberts got dazed and remembered nothing thereafter. That brandy and port settled him. In reply to further questioning by Sub-Inspector MeG-rath, Roberts said that was not the only time he haa been m Warner's recently. "J went there because I wasn't known," he added.In reply to Mr Oassidy, Roberts said that when he got/on to the ftram to come to Christchurch he was sober. At the terminus tfie tram officials were having breakfast, and Roberts went and obtained some fruit for them before the car started. It was a douhlfe-declser, and Roberts climbed uu the tricky, sinu&us stairs with the sobriety of a bisnop when he isn't drinking. "When 1 went to Warner's," remarked Roberts, "I wouldn't say I was as 1 sober as' I am now, because (regretfully) I haven't Had a drink for a week." (Laualrber.) Orderly : Silence irt Court.. He said he was very shaky arid toott brandy and port, which wasn't Ms usual tipple. fie did it to pull himself together, "but instead of that," he said, "it flattened me out." Probably tha fact that he had had no breaklast had something to do with it. He had dinfed the night before, however. Roberts acknowledged to the Sub. that he had had "a good drop^pf drink" before leaving home that morning, it was whisky, and Roberts absorbed . four nips. The brandy and por^ wine m Warner's was a pretty stiff nip. Peeler Douthett saAV Roberts get down from the tram at the cornier of Cashel and High-streets, and having instructions to follow him; kep"t his prey m front of him, as he proceeded down certain bylanes TO THE BACK OF WARNER'S, within striking distance of the rear of the Cathedral. The peeler detailed evidence that has already appeared m this pious publication, and said that . barnum Stack had! affirmed that he didn't know Roberts was a prohib. "The constable m the original case said that lie wouldn't have arrested Roberts m the bar or immediately atfer emerging from the hotel had -he not known that the man was prohibited, But varied his evidence slightly later, whereupon Mr Cassidy produced Magistrate Ilaselden's notes of Douthett's testimony. These notes showed contradictory evidence to the effect that the man was and was not a fit subject for arrest when he .came out of the hostelry. Jn reply to the Sub. the bobby said that if they arrested every drunlcen person for drunkenness, there would be no accommodation for the sosselled individuals at the station. Peeler Cleary, watch-house keeper, stated that Roberts was helplessly drunk when he saw him at the station. When informed by Mr Cassidy that Roberts had walked to the station with Douthett, who wheeled his bike with one' hand, the copper still stated that Roberts ,was helplessly sosselled. There was another name for it. He was m the horrors. He .believed that a man who could walk might be 'helplessly drunk. What is .your definition of helplessly drunk ?— When he can't do anything* - But lie could walk ?— The bobby still stuck to the opinion that the man was helpless. - '.'•"" Do you remember the Auckland case where five policemen said a man . was drunk and five 'civilians swore that he was sober ?— No ; I don't remember it. Sergeant Miller swore that he saw Roberts helplessly drunk at the police station. The gentleman with the stripes on his arm interviewed Barman Stack after the ar\est, and the beer-puller said he had the name of Graham Roberts on his list of prohibited persons, but he didn't know that Roberts (whose name he didn't know) was a prohibited person. Accordingly, when Roberts ordered the brandy * and port wine, the customer put down a sovereign and received his change. The sergeant remarked to the barman "The brandy and \port wine must have been pretty strong, as he was drunk on the way to, the station." Whereupon the barman replied, "He may haVe got drink m some other hotel before he came' here." The sergeant remarked, sympathetically, "Probably so. These men get drunk at other hotels, and you arc the one who is caught." He "rejoined, "Yes ; its liard luck, isn't it V" Sub-Inspector McGrath said he saw Roberts at the station at 11.20, when the man was quite drunk. No one could fail to observe it at the time. Mr Cassisy noticed that the Sub. took a more modified view of the man's condition than previous witnesses, whereupon the witness said he had no doubt the man was hclplesslv drunk. To facilitate matters, Mr Cassidy admitted that Gould was the licensee, and that Stack was his servant. Addressing the Court, he asked Beak Baitey to discount the evidence of the wife concerning Roberts' alleged insobriety m the morning, as SHE WAS VERY BITTER IN THIS MATTER. It was the old trouble that the Magistrate had to decide., when

a man was' sober and when he was m a state of snicker. Counsel quoted the Chief Justice, who had held that when a man got drunk, and asked for a drink, he must have lost control ot the whole of his faculties, mentally and bodily. Roberts was hot m the bad stats at Stunner that had been mentioned by the wife, as he would prove by evidence. C6unsel held that the fact oi the car being a double-decker was a test of sobriety. "It< is with me," said counsel, "and I don't carry more liquor than is good for me." The s6Hcitor pointed out that a constable who knew that Roberts was prohibited had every opportunity of preventing the man from drinking, yet permitted him to swallow | the swankey. The fact that he had not j prevented the liquor absorption proved thai the constable .believed that tber v man was not drunk. Counsel would not say /of a moment that the police would be 'parties to trapping a prohibited person or of trapping a publican. The evidence of the police went to show that Roberts had not lost control of his faculties. He Called Herbert John Stevens, tram conductor, toho said the employees bad siarict instructions not to take snickered persons on t6 a tram. He saw Roberts' m the 10.11 a.m. traim on the 15th. It arrived m town at iO.frO a.m. He corroborated the fact that Roberts had bought them sanie oranges and other fruit while they were having their,/ early meal at the Sumnei' terminus. Roberts got inside the' Car, but at Watson's store he saw some friends, and got on top of the decker with them. He was sober. To the Sub. : Rolterts travelled m and out about twice a week. The conductor had seen him the worse for liquor. Benjamin Whitehouse, motorman, saw Rolierts that morning, and sard he was sober. An old buster named Robert Wya'tt, who has been' 30 years m Christchurch, happened to be M the back bar of Warner's on the 15th, when Roberts, entered, aAd he remarked . to his friend, Janies Fitzpatfick, that Roberts' countenance bore a striking resemblance to t&at of an old friend, «ne Michael Hart; la\fr clerk , now •deceased. Roberts was sober at the time. James Fitzpatrick, an Older buster than the last, also . said that Roberts was sober. Sam Forsyth, a middle-aged man, was m the bar, and saw Roberts and Douthett enter. Also he lieard part of their conversation, and judged that Roberts was sober. Mr Cassidy mentioned at, this stage that m the previous case Mr Haseiden, S.M., had held that Roberts was not drunk m the bar of the hotel. Mr Cassidy said that he (counsel) had urged upon the Magistrate that there was no evidence of drunkenness m the hotel that might go to a jury, whereupon the PERMITTED THE POLICE TO ALTER THE INFORMATION' to a charge of drunkenness m the street. The Sub. admitted that the information had* been so amended. Gould, the licensee, an individual with a grey-pointed beard, who used to be manager of the Hannver Hospital, said he had been four months m the (beer biz. His instructions to his employees were that anyone who served . a • drunken or a prohibited person would, be' instantly dismissed. He had never seen Roberts about his premises. John Stack said he had been barman at Warner's for three months, and admitted serving Roberts, who' was quite sober. He helped himself to the brandy and port wine, sifter which Douthett,'. who had a beer, told the barman that Roberts Was prohibited. TKe constable had plenty of time to prevent Roberts getting outside the pick-i-me-sip, but did--n't do so. The barman -didn't know Roberts, although he bad seen him' there: before. Roberts tried ta "get away when discovered, but the peeler put his hanti on his shoulder as he was going. ' out of <he door. To the Sub. the witness said Roberts . had lia-d drmks before m the house recently, and usually -surrounded ■ brandy and port wine. There were no signs oi drink on the man on this Occasion> and Stack had never seen him with signs of drink on him m the bar. I believe that it is a fact that he pur- . chased a bottle of w&isky from you nearly every morning ?— No. ' The Sub. wanted to bo sure on this point, and Stack said that Roberts had • been iii a few times' lately, but he didn't get a bottle of whisky on every occasion. "A few times" he got a bottle of whisky, and the circumstance didn't appear unusual to "the barman. Beak Bailey dismissed the information. He considered it proved tnat the man was not drunk when he went into' the bar. He had been drunk the night before and had taken some liquor that morning at his own house. Afterwards (and the Magistrate reviewed the evidence) 1 Roberts acted like a man who was drunk. Probfibly he had not taken much dinner on the night before, and, having no break- . fast, he took drink on an empty stomach, this, combined with the excitement of arrest, produced intoxication, which manifested itself on the way to "the station. It might be only .a few seconds before liquor took effect ; one liquor might go . to the head very quickly, but at other times half a dozen liquors might not do so. THE INFORMATION WAS DISMISSED. John Stack was also charged with serving an intoxicated, prohibited person, but as the evidence was exactly the- same as m the previous case, the police withdrew the information. Gould was then charged with supplying a prohibited person with liquor. The Sub. saTd the evidence was the same, and, m reply to him, Mr Cassidy said 4ie would admit that notice of Roberts' order had been served on the hotel. The Sub-Inspector contended that Gould m the words of 219 of the Licensing Act, had' had reasonable opportunity of knowing that Roberts ; was a prohibited person. Mr Cassidy told the Bench that the order was issued on December 8, lUOB. Counsel contended that there, was no evidence to prove that the licensee had had reasonable opportunity to know that Roberts was a person •■ who should be avoided by a respectable publican. Counsel made reference to the weighty interests &i stake, and said that Gould, had ne known Roberts' embargo, would not have jeopardised his business for the sake of sixpence. Upon his own admission, Roberts went to Warner's because there he wasn't known. Counsel said that there were from 400 to 500 prohibited persons m Christchurch, and urged the impossibility of identifying them. It had been suggested m the did Country that the photos of prohibited persons should be circulated amongst publicans, and counsel remarked that the innovation might be introduced m "God's Own." The Sub-Inspector agreed with Mr Uassidy's remarks about the difficulty experienced by publicans, but, as a matter of fact, a lot of the publicans took not the slightest notice of the lists of prohibited persons' sent to them. The S.M. held that knowledge should be proved and dismissed the case. A similar charge, preferred against the barman, was Withdrawn.

In connection with the "anniversary" of a suburban wowsery, "a choir of 301) mixed voices ' was announced. A sin(g)ful push, apparently!