DRUNK OR NOT DRUNK?
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. WELLINGTON. June 30. The old question whether a person is drunk or not cropped up in court hero once more. A man 39 years of age was charged with drunkenness. His statement was that he had been to a dentist, and had bought some whisky to wash his mouth out, but he admitted having several beers beforehand One doctor said-the man had been drinking, and the police evidence was that defendant was in such a condition as to make him a danger to himself and to others. He put up his fists to the doctor and tried a step-dance. For the defence another doctor said the man was not drunk, though he had certainly had liquor. Asked if he had had much experience, he told the police his professional knowledge was superior to. theirs, which brought the retort that there was no one more experienced on the subject than the police. In the end the defendant was fined.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19260706.2.380
Bibliographic details
Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 81
Word Count
164DRUNK OR NOT DRUNK? Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 81
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Otago Witness. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.