PUBLICAN PROSECUTED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18349, 13 September 1921, Page 3

PUBLICAN PROSECUTED

CHARGE OF PERMITTING. DRUNKENNESS. POLICE CASE TOO WEAK. In the City Police Court yesterday morning, before Mr J. R- Bartholomew, o-M., William Quirk, licensee of the Excelsior Hotel, xvas charged with permitting drunkenness on the promises on August 11. Mr A. C. Hanlon defended, and entered a plea of not guilty. Sub-inspector AVillis stated that the charge arose out of the death, at the hotel cf a returned soldier named Hatcher, whose body was discovered in the bottle collar. Dr Evans said that on the evening of August 11, in response to a telephone unessage from the hotel, ho proceeded there, and wont to the bottle cellar. Here ho saw the body of Hatcher on the floor, lying on its back. The body was oold, and death had evidently taken place at least an hour and a-half earlier. By instruction of the coroner witness made a post-mortem examination the following day, and as a result of that examination he was of opinion that the deceased suffered from cirrhosis of the liver and died from that trouble. In witness’s opinion it was due to the prolonged use of alcohol.—To Mr Hanlon: A man might die suddenly from cirrhosis of the liver; it was- quite likely, also, that such a sufferer would suddenly collapse. He might become unconscious, and the unconsciousness might be similar to the unconsciousness brought about by drinking. . . .. , , Thomas M'Alister Drain said he had known the deceased for 13 or. 14 years.. About 9 o’clock on the morning of deceased’s death ho saw the deceased near, the Grand Hotel, and spoke to hini for a, minute. The deceased was sober, but his eyes were inflamed, and he appeared somewhat shaky. Witness thought he had been drinking. .George Henry Walsh, porter at the Excelsior Hotel, said he knew the deceased by sight. He saw him in the bar at 1 o'clock on the day of His death. He was with three other people, arid was leaning against the counter. Witness swept the bar out. Ho saw glasses, but no drink before the men. Witness returned again shortly, and the deceased was then lying on the couch. The other men were gone. They were unfamiliar to witness. ■ The deceased had a stiff leg. and walked with a stick. The stick was still hanging on the counter when the deceased was on the couch. The barman (Lawrence) told witness to carry the man out. Witness carried him to the empty bott'o cellar. The deceased had been in apparently exactly the same condition on an occasion some tour months earlier, when witness had taken him to the same place. On that occasion the man was gone when witness returned to the cellar an hour later. On the occasion of deceased’s death witness returned to the cellar after an interval of two hours, and found the deceased sitting exactly as ho had left him. Witness spoke to him, but got no reply. The deceased was breathing. Witness did not know whether he was drunk or ill. He did not know what to think. He intended to go to the cellar again before closing time and see that the man had gone, but before that he was summoned to speak to a constable who desired to see him about the death of deceased. The bodv had then been removed from the cellar. —To Mr PlanIon: WitnesS could net sav whether the deceased was actually in' the company of. the other men or not. He was standing beside them, but witness saw none of them actually drinking. Mr Hanlon submitted that there was no case to answer. There was no evidence of drunkenness. The Magistrate said he was afraid counsel was right. There was no direct evidence of drunkenness, nor was there any evidence from wbieli such an inference could safely bo made. The case was a very unsatisfactory one. It was evident from the evidence of the porter, Walsh, that ho considered the man was drunk. He had said that, he had seen the man in a similar condition previously, and had put him in the cellar. On this occasion the porter evidently had no doubt as to the man’s condition, or some other measures would have been taken in regard to the unfortunate man. As to whether the -man was. drunk, he (the magistrate) was not satisfied with the evidence.. There was no direct evidence as to drunkenness, and he could not say .op the_ facts proved that such would be a proper inference for the court to draw. , Mr Hanlon said he would just like to sav that the landlord was not on the premises at the time, and whatever occurred was the result, more or less, of the action of an inexperienced young porter. ~,. His Worship said it was evident that the servants in .this case did hpt properly appreciate their position. It was not only the action of the porter that he wished to refer to. The barman was the responsible person. It. could not bo proved whether the unfortunate man was drunk or rot, but it certainly left a bid impression that he should have been handled in such a way, irrespective cf what his condition was. Tho barman himself should have made inquiries, and if he found that the man was not drunk, then proper methods should have been taken accordingly. The landlord was not present, but. there should bo some, regular and proper schooling of employees.