Fatality

Southern Cross, Volume 11, Issue 16, 18 July 1903, Page 10

Fatality

AT WALLACBTO WN JUNCTION

RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOTELKEEPEES

We continue our report of the inquest held in the Courthouse, Invercargill, on Friday, 10th July, concerning the death of Mr Bernard Mullan, West Plains. Mr McCarthy, District Coroner, presided. Inspector Mitchell conducted the case for the police, and Mr Stout watched the proceedings on behalf of the licensee of the Wallacetown Junction Hotel.

James V. Fahey gave evidence as to seeing Culhane and Mullan at the Junction Hotel on Wednesday, Ist July, and as to three rounds of drinks being supplied in the passage before they and witness went upstairtto bed. Mullan was not the worse of liquor. When he was supplied with the last drink he was not drunk. He got worse after going to his rtfom. Witness believed that Robertson asked him to look after the candlestick and see that the light was put out properly. The Inspector pressed the witness for more definite replies, and eventually the Coroner intervened, remarking, ‘Y ou are not talking to an infant class, but to a jury of grown-up men.’ The Inspector (to witness) : Why did you take Mullan’s boots off if he was thoroughly sober P Witness : He was not thoroughly sober, but he was not helplessly drunk.

The Inspector: Was he intoxicated ? Witness : Yes.

The Inspector : It is very kind of you to admit that much. Does that apply to his condition when he went upstairs P

Witness : No ; he seemed to me to be quite sober. Witness further stated that be did not assist the deceased upstairs. He went into the room for a chat, and as Mullen kept on talking instead of undressing, he took off his boots for him and rolled him into bed. Mullan seemed to be sober at the bottom of the stairs, but afterwards in bis room be was not sober, although not helplessly drunk. If any witness said that he (Fahey) was not sober he would contradict him. Culhane was a little under the influence of drink, but witness was not prepared to contradict him if he said he was much under the influence of liquor. Inspector : When did you get the subpoena to come here ? Witness; On Wednesday night last.

Inspector : Where was it served p Witness . At the Garnival. Inspector : Have you seen Mr Robertson since ? Witness : Hot until to-day. Inspector ; What conversation have you and he had over this matter today ? Witness : The matter was not spoken of except in a general way. The Inspector : What was the gist of it ? Did he wish you to make matters light for him, or anything to that effect ? Witness : No. The Inspector : Or to tell the court that they were perfectly sober P Witness : No. The Inspector: Or to tell the court that they were drunk ? Witness : No. The Inspector : Do you remember if the bedroom window was open or shut ? Witness : It was shut. The Inspector : How did you know that ? Witness : There was a strong gale blowing. The Inspector: Oulhane says that Mullan was worse than he was through drink. Was that the case ? Witness : He was. ' The Inspector: That would account for you taking off his boots and not Oulhane’s ? Witness : Probably. The Inspector : And pushing him back on the bed, and covering him with the clothes P Witness : Yes.

The Inspector : Then why not have told us so at the beginning p Witness, farther examined, stated that drinks were supplied in the sitting room, but he did not have any. Connell McDivitt deposed that when at tea in the hotel Malian rose to make a speech and fell back. feWitness assisted him to recover himself. The fall might have been due to his chair catching in the matting on the floor. He thought at the time that Mullan had some drink in him. Mullan shouted in the sitting room, and witness shouted before leaving for home at 9.30 p.m. At that time Culhane and Mullan had every intention of going home, and neither seemed to have any appearance of drink, Mary Ellen Henrietta Robertson, wife of the licensee of the Junction Hotel, deposed that so far as she knew, Oulhane and Mullan only had about three drinks before lunch on the Wednesday. They returned after lunch, but as far as she knew they did not have any more drinks before tea. Mullan seemed inclined to go home, but Oulhane wanted to stay, because it was too far to go home and return to look for some cattle they had lost. They spent the evening in one of the sitting rooms, and deceased had one drink while there. A little after nine they went into the passage, and remained there till closing time. McDivitt shouted there, and so did Mullan, saying : ‘We will have one more before we go.’ They were all whiskies. Saw Mullan, Oulhane, and Eahey going upstairs to bed, her husband going first to show them to their rooms. Fahey followed her husband, Oulhane came behind Fahey, and Mullan was last. She did not notice anything out of the way when they were going upstairs—nothing different to anybody else. The Inspector ; Do you tell the court that Mullan and Oulhane were perfectly sober when they went upstairs ?

Witness : To my idea of thinking they were.

The Inspector: Culhane says he was not sober, Malian is not here to speak for himself. You think a man that requires another to take off his boots, and who goes to bed with his clothes on, is perfectly sober—do you think so p

Witness : I would not think so. Witness added that she heard nothing during the night. About a quarter past seven next morning her sister called her, and witness roused Fahey and Oulhane. Her husband helped to carry deceased into the hotel. John Robertson, licensee of the Junction Hotel, deposed that he could not tell how many drinks Oulhane and Mullan had in the forenoon—two or three, he thought. They had lunch and returned about tea-time. Mullan was extremely intelligent, and a nice, quiet man. Witness invited them to have a drink just before closing time by way of a doch and dorris. There were two rounds of drinks in the passage —that was all he remembered ; there might have been three. When witness shouted he made a motion with his hand for the bar to be shut, but Mullan said— £ No, I won’t allow you to shout last,’ and shouted. ‘When I invited them out,’ continued the witness, ‘I thought they were quite sober enough to have drinks, or I would not have invited them.’ The Inspector : I ask you what was their condition at tbe time you invited them out ? Witness : What do you mean by condition p The Inspector : Did they show signs of having had drink ? Witness : In what way ? The Inspector: With regard to speech and general behayiour. Witness: You would ‘ not have known that they had had any. The Inspector: You have already told the detective, and signed a statement to tbe effect, that they showed signs of having had one or two drinks, and that you thought they were capable of carrying another. Did you say that or not ? Witness: I did. The Inspector: Or even two more ? Witness : Yes. The Inspector : Were they capable

of having three more ? Is that eon-, sistent with the statement you signed? Witness : The statement I made to the detective was .a general one. After further questions the Inspector added : If a third drink was supplied they had one more than they ought to have had P Witness : I would not say that, because when a man says that another person is capable of carrying one or two more, he does’nt say that two more would have a bad effect. It depends on who it is. In the course of farther evidence witness denied that he gave instructions to anyone to put out the candle. He depended on themselves to put the light out. He generally put out the light when doubtful about a man’s condition, but on this occasion he was not doubtful. The Inspector: Fahey says you did ask him to see to the light. Is he mistaken ? Witness : Well, as far as I know— The Inspector : I may tell you that he has deliberately tried to shield you as far as he could, but he went as tar as that. Did he speak falsely ? Witness : I should not like to say that. I don’t remember asking him, but I am not prepared to swear to it. The Inspector : Fahey says he went into their room to have a chat, and took off the boots of the deceased man. Where was the necessity for his doing that ? Witness : I don’t know. The Inspector : I want you to explain matters. You are the licensee of the hotel, and responsible for what takes place. Where was the necessity for taking off the deceased man’s boots ? Witness : I have tried, and I can show, that it has been my endeavour to keep people from getting drunk. Question repeated to witness : Simply because he might have been one of those kind of men who drink and it doesn’t take effect till long afterwards. He might be perfectly sober to my view of thinking, and ask me for drink, and I would give it to him, and yet it might affect him afterwards. The Inspector : What about going to bed with his clothes on ? What does that indicate ? Witness : That he was a man whom drink affected afterwards. The Inspector: His boots were taken off, and he was rolled into bed, and the bed clothes turned over him —what does that conclusively prove P Witness : I suppose you know without my telling you. The Inspector : But I want you to tell the court, please. Witness : That the drink took effect on him afterwards, which was no fault of mine. The Inspector: It appears that through drink he was unable to do for himself what a man ordinarily does. Witness : I did not say it was through drink. There might have been another cause. The Inspector : Can you suggest one ? Witness : I’m not here to suggest. The Inspector: Do you ask the court to believe that Mullan was thoroughly sober when he went upstairs ?

Witness : I ask the court to believe that when [grave him a drink he was thoroughly sober. The Coroner : Culhane says :— ‘ I went upstairs alone, but I think Fahey had hold of one of Mullan’s arms,’ What do you say to that ? Witness: Culhane— The Inspector: Is that true or false ? Witness ; That is false. The Inspector : Culhane says he was the worse of liquor. What do you say to that p Witness : I think it is false. These were his own words next morning. I said— ‘ It is a strange thing how it happened,’ and he said— ‘ We were both perfectly sober.’ The Inspector: Yon are talking seriously ? Witness ; Yes. The Inspector : I don’t think you will get many to believe you. Who

was the worst —Culhane or Malian ? Witness : They were both the same —none of them were very bad. Witness described the removal of the deceased into the hotel, and stated that he telephoned for Dr Fullarton, and afterwards helped to cat ry deceased to the “railway platform, from whence ho was taken by train to the hospital. He did not go to the hospital—Malian’s mate went with him, and witness thought that was enough. Ethel Maud Carrie Mortimer, sister of Mrs Robertson, gave evidence to the effect that at a quarter to seven on Thursday morning Mr A. Wilson called and said there was a man lying outside the hotel. Witness went out and asked what he was doing there, and the man put up his right hand and shook it. Dr Hendry deposed that Malian was quite unconscious when received at the Hospital. The first thing to draw attention was that the man smelt of drink. On examination he found that Mullan had a cut under the chin, which had been sewn up, a large braise over the eye, his two arms were broken just above the wrists, and he had all the appearances of suffering from concussion of the brain. The post mortem revealed a fracture of the skull, and that all the organs of the body were fairly healthy. . The injuries would not of themselves necessarily have led to death, but they showed that in their production the brain must have received a very severe shock. The immediate cause of death was concussion of the brain and shock. He smelt the liquor from the foot of the bed. Two nurses also detected liquor on the man. He would be surprised to hear that Dr Fullarton had not noticed the smell of liquor ; but one man’s sense of smell might not be so acute as another’s.. He could only speak as to his own sense of smell. The deceased had apparently fallen with his hands out, and must have been as unconscious immediately after the accident as he was when brought to the Hospital. Archibald Wilson, employed at the Wallacetown Meat Works, deposed that be saw a man lying in front of the hotel about seven o’clock on Thursday morning. He was lying face downwards, and witness turned him over, but he did nor. speak. He was breathing, but heavily, as though snoring. Inspector Mitchell said that he could call a dozen other witnesses if necessary, but the jury thought that further evidence was not required, and The Coroner, addressing the jury, said that it they believed the evidence, the deceased man was one who on occasions gave way to excessive drinking. The evidence showed that Culhane and Mullan were under the influence of liquor throughout Tuesday, and that during Wednesday, so far as could be gathered from the evidence, deceased had something like twelve or thirteen alcoholic drinks. At 3 p.m. Miss Jenkins saw him at her brother’s farm, and she said that he was strange in manner, and had signs of drink. On his return to the Wallacetown Hotel, Miss Benn’s evidence was that she observed no signs of liquor on deceased, but the statement she made as the result of the Detective’s visit, to the effect that she only then knew that it was an offence to serve a man under the influence of drink, was significant. Next same the tea-table incident, and the question for the jury was—Did Mullan fall through tripping on the carpet, or through the influence of drink ? There were some discrepancies in the evidence relating to Malian’s going to bed, but it was clear that he was put there with his clothes on and that someone took off his. boots, and also that some time during the night, through some means or another, he got out of the window, and as a result of the fall received injuries which caused his death. On these facts, Robertson, the licensee, invited the jury to come to the conclusion that when he gave Mullan the last drink in the bar the man was not drunk; the police, on the other hand, suggested that during the

whole of the day he was drinking, and that when he was put to bed he was in a state of helpless intoxication. Whether they believed Robertson’s suggestion or that of the police was entirely a matter for their consideration, after exercising their commonsense on the evidence. It was the proper time to make some remarks on the legal position licensees might find themselves in, apart from the provisions of the Licensing Act, if they supplied liquor to men in a state of intoxication. The law was clear that, when anyone committed an unlawful act, and as the immediate or proximate result of the commission of that act death results to another, the person committing the unlawful act is guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Apply that rule to the facts of the present case. No doubt it was an unlawful act for a licensee to sell liquor to anyone in a state of intoxication, and if, as the immediate result of an over - supply of intoxicants death ensues, a charge of manslaughter would lie against a licensee. The Coroner continued : I am unable to rule or advise that in the present case, any charge of manslaughter would lie against the licensee. If the evidence had shown that the deceased had been so supplied with liquor as to induce dementia, and that in a tit of dementia Mullan jumped out of the window, and that death resulted, I should have been prepared to advise you that a charge of manslaughter would lie ; but here the immediate cause of death was not the supplying of the liquor but the fall from the window, and that fall may have been the result of a conscious act on the part of the deceased, for which conscious act the licensee, for any legal purposes, would not be responsible. However, I deem it wise to make these remarks, and to explain, as I understand it, the law of the land, so that those licensees who feel inclined to supply liquor to men already in a state of intoxication may know the serious results that may follow from such conduct. Of coarse, as I have said, it is for you to say what was the state of that man when supplied with these liquors. It is also open for the jury, in addition to any verdict which they may return as to the cause of death, to add any rider that they wish, provided it is reasonably borne out by the evidence. The jury returned the following verdict ; “ That the deceased, Bernard Mullan, met his death by a fall out of a window of the Wallacetown Junction Hotel some time during the night of the Ist inst. or the morning of the 2nd, and we believe the fall was the result of deceased being supplied at the Wallacetown Junction Hotel with intoxicating liquor whilst in a drunken state.”