DRUNKENNESS ON LICENSED PREMISES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14282, 3 August 1908, Page 7

DRUNKENNESS ON LICENSED PREMISES

TWO PUBLICANS FINED. LICENSES NOT ENDORSED. On Saturday morning at the City Police Court Mr Widdowson, S.M., gave judgment in tho eises heard on Tuesday last, in which William Glccson, of the Rainbow Hotel, and John Morrison, of the European Hotel, v.oro charged with permitting drunkenness on their licensed promises. THE RAINBOW HOTEL. In respect to the ehargo against William Glceeon, Mr Widdowson said:—l am satisfied from tho evidence that the man O'Donnell went with Power to defendant's bar on the night in question, that while ! there he was, with Power, served with more liquor (tho drinks, however, being paid | for by ( the latter), and that no stops wexo . talwn to turn him off tho premises, but that, ho was allowed to leave o' his own accord. Tho bar was in charge of defendant's barmaid, who states that she was the only one on duty, that there would not bo many people in that night, and that she does not remember the two men coming in, nor did she supply any man who was the worse for drink. I am of opinion that the barmaid must have known of the man's condition, or that she wilfully shut her eyes to the fact, and that, under all the circumstances of the case, the defendant must be convicted. THE EUROPEAN HOTEL. In this case the decision was as'follows: : I must hold upon tho evidence that O'Donnell went with Power to defendant's bar on the evening of Juno 30, and that ho was then drunk. Thuy appear to have had drinks then as well as at tho Rainbow Hotel, but neither he nor Power can say who ordered or l'f.kl for tho drinks. I'ower states that tlicy went to the counter, hut admits that there was a crowd in the to, and that the barman may not have noticed O'Donnell, who also will not swear that the barman saw him. They appear to have remained tlie.ro for sonic little time, and left of their own accord, no steps being taken to turn them out. The bar was in charge of defendant's barman, George M'Leod, who .states in evidence that lie is careful in the conduct of bis bar, for which purpose lie always takes notice of who comes into the bar, and if two drinks arc ordered 1 by one man to. 6ee, to tho best of his ability, for whom the other is required. Ho states that he knows the men well, hut does not remember them being there that evening, and believes that O'Donnell was not there, but that if they were there and ono or other of them obtained drink ho thinks he must have seen them. He further states that lie has refused to supply drink to O'Donaiell before, and is sure that he did not see O'Donnell drunk. He, however, admits that it is impossible to keep a tally of all who come in, and states further' that all sorts of dodges ore resorted to. I have already said that I am satisfied that O'Donnell was in the bar oil the night "in question, and that he was then drunk. The law is very briefly stated in Stone's "Justices Manual," at page 510, that a publican cannot. Hp convicted of permitting drunkenness on his premises in the absence of knowledge (hat a person was drunk there, or of connivance or_nogligep.ee on his part, or a.s was stated in "Paterson on Licensing" at page 30, in the absence of knowledge or connivancc. Actual knowJedgo is not necessary, but there mu6t be somo circumstances from which it may be inferred that the licenteo or his servants had connivod.at what was goini; on. Constructive knowlcdgo will supply the place of actual knowledge (Bosley v. Davies, 1 Q.8.D., 81). It is the duty of a licensee to conduct Ill's licensed premises in a proper manner, and take all reasonable care that drunkenness, etc., does not occur on his premises, and ho is liable for any misconduct in the management of the business, whether on his part or that of his servants. I am of opinion that it is tho duty of the person in charge to know tho condition of the people who enter his bar, and not to allow any drunken man to remain, otherwise he is not exercising reasonable care and is guilty of misconduct in management. In tho present case the barman's evidence shows that he is fully aware that great care is necessary. If he saw O'Donnell ho must have been aware of his condition, but lie does not actually know that O'Donnell was Uiore in the 6ensc of seeing him, which seems to me doubtful; lie must, in my opinion, have been negligent or careless, or, at, least, did not tako reasonable care! Also if he allowed 6iich a state of things to exist as ho must have known would preclude him from doing Jus duty (such as allowing a too crowded' bar) it would, I think, amount, to connivance on his part. I go further, and say that if the trade in this Ixir is as great as. the barman states when lie says the customers arc sometimes five and six deep, tho licensee himself wis not _ taking proper and reasonable caro in tho conduct of his business by leaving on? mar. in charge,. and might bo held guilty of connivance. I am of opinion that reasonable care was not taken in this case, ami that there .was connivance, if not actual Knowledge. Tho defendant will therefore be convicted. THE FINES. _ Mr Frase.r, who conducted tho prosecution, mentioned that there were five witnesses, and suggested that his Worship 3»ig"ht, if he eaw fit, divide the witnesses' ccstj between the two defendants. nis Worship: Each defendant will be fined £5 and ordered to pay costs as follows: Costs of court, 12s; witnesses, 15s: solicitor's fee, £3 3s. Reviving to Mr Solomon, who appealed for the licensee of the European Hotel, his Worship said he refrained from exercising tho power of endorsing the license. Ho also declined to increase the penalty so as to give Morrison the option of appealing.