CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10449, 27 August 1895, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, August £0. (Before Messrs C. C. Graham and M. Fraer, J.Ps.J Disorderly while Drunk.—Robert Mnson pleaded guilty to a charge of being disorderly ivhile drunk in Stafford street on the 24th inst. — .Sergeant 0" iVeiii' -Stated . that this ..to*, accused's first appearance. He was a good deal the worse -of drink, and was fighting and quarrelling about half-past 10 o'clock at night. — Being, his first appearance, he was convicted and discharged. , Theft.— James Boyle waR charged with the theft on the 24th mat., at Caversbam, of afisiJ,. _valued at Is 6ii, the property of William Smith..— '"'■- . Inspector Pardy stated that accused snatched the fish from the window and made off with it. He was followed and the fish taken from him.— Evidence having been given by William Smith and Constable Brennan, accused stated that he was the worse for liquor and did not know what he was about.—The Bench said they would deal lightly with him, and fined him ss, in default 4S hours' imprisonment. Permitting Drunkenness.—George Weir was charge;, on remand, with having permitted drunkenness to exist on his licensed premises, the Hotel Metropole, on the 31st July.—lnspector X'ardy conducted the prosecution ; Mr Solomon (with him Mr W. C. MacGregor) appeared for the defence, and Mr James for the owner of the house.—lnspector Pardy stated that the facts had already been published in the press in connection with a coroner's inquest on the body of Nicholas Been, a resident of South Dunedin. It appeared that on the night in cjuestion Been went to see a Mr Ibbotson at St. Glair to get some mosey that was owing to him, and when he got it he went to the Hotel Metropote and remained there drinking till he left about 10 o'clock. Been was not seen again till next morning, when he was found by a man named Alexander, on the point of death. He was'removed to his house and was there found to be dead. The place where Been was found in the snow was in a direct line with the course he would take going from the hotel to his own home. It would be shown that the man was seen at different times the worse for liquor. Mrs Mooney would be called and would say that deceased came to her store, opposite the hotel, to post a letter, but could not do so on account of his condition. She posted the letter for him and he got a packet of cigarettes and went back to the hotel, where he was' supplied with a loDg glass of beer. Of course it was no offence for a hotel keeper to supply a drunken man with liquor under' the wonderful act of ISSI. He must sell it to the man. He must not "allow drunkenness to exist, anditwasfor the police to prove that there was drunkenness.—-Joseph Hunter Loudon, salesman, deposed that he saw Been at the hotel, and that he was under the influence of liquor.—To Mr Solomon : Been spoke broken English. The only sigh of drink was that he was n>;ore loquacious than usual. —Margaret Mooney stated that Been came to her store about half-past 7 o'clock in the evening. He was not sober, and witness posted a letter for him in the pillar-box.— Frank William Ihbotson knew deceased, who had - a glass of beer at witness's expense at the hotel that night. Witness thought be was sober at the time he asked him to have the drink.—To Mr MacGregor : Witness paid deceased £1 2s 6d.— Robert Young deposed that he asked deceased to have a drink with him on the night in question. Witness thought the man was ail right. He was quite competent to look after himself. He seemed to walk all right. He was sober to all intents-and purposes.—To Mr Solomon: The man was hot drunk.—Dr Fulton also gave evidence.—lnspector Pardy was proceeding to call evidence to shovst that the spot where Been was'found was in as^_ direct line between the hotel and the tiouse,' but Mr Solomon said he would admit that.—This closed the case for the prosecution.—The'Bench said they were not examining into the death of Been, but were looking into the question of defendant having permitted drunkenness on his premises.—Mr Solomon : The question you want to decide is not whether the man was drunk, but that the hotelkeeper knew of his being drunk.— The Bench did not consider that there was evidence to show that the man was in such a state as would constitute drunkenness/ and that therefore defendant had not supplied him With liquor while he was in a state of drunkenness. . They could not convict; and had decided to dismiss the case. The Bench subsequently expressed an opinion that the police were perfectly justified in bringing the case—in fact that it was their duty to do so.