BREACH OF LICENSING ACT

Taranaki Daily News, 9 June 1932, Page 13

BREACH OF LICENSING ACT

INTOXICATED PERSON SUPPLIED. HOTEL BARMAN CONVICTED. When police officers visited the Grosvenor Hotel, New Plymouth, on the afternoon of May 10 they found that a man who was under the influence of liquor had been served with a drink. As a result Edward Beattie, the barman, was charged with supplying liquor, ana Harry Holmes, the licensee, with selling 'liquor to an intoxicated P crs< ™; Beattie pleaded guilty and was fined, (costs 10s.). The information against Holmes was dismissed. Counsel for both defendants did not dispute the facts but urged that Holmes was ill, was not in the bar, and had no personal interest in the matter. The sole question was whether in the circumstances a conviction was necessary against the licensee. _ . Senior-Sergeant McCrorie, who prosecuted, said Sergeant McGregor and Gonstable Mitchell visited the hotel at 4.40 p.m. A man named Frederick Ernest James was standing in the. bar. He was under the influence of liquor and Hie had been served by the barman.. The police saw that the man was intoxicated and the barman put him out of the bar. Holmes at the time was ill in bed and had been there for a day or two. Holmes was legally responsible, but morally he was not. Counsel said on behalf of Beattie that it was a genuine mistake on his part aud an unintentional breach of the law. James was a stranger to New Plymouth, and Beattie did not know he was intoxicated. There was nothing in his conduct to indicate he was intoxicated, for he was perfectly quiet and inoffensive. The defence accepted the police statement that James was intoxicated and had no alternative but to plead guilty. Sometimes, said counsel, it was Ver,y difficult for a barman to decide whether to supply liquor when a man who was not known came into a hotel bar and the first the barman saw was the iqan leaning over the bar asking for a drink. He knew that Beattie did refuse to supply drink to a man who was intoxicated, and had actually taken a glass of liquor off the bar when he saw that a man was intoxicated. Holmes, counsel, submitted, was morally blameless. The Court had discretion in these matters, and he asked whether it was necessary for the magistrate to convict. The magistrate said the licensee had an absolute responsibility as well as a vicarious responsibility. Where a licensee was ill and no carelessness on his part could be shown it seemed hard that he should be convicted. He therefore thought he was justified in exercising his discretion and dismissing the information. _ ‘rf . The barman, the- magistrate said, must realise that the offence was a serious one and carried a heavy fine,' It might be difficult to detect intoxication, but a barman had to be careful , and must see he did not serve an intoxicated person. Had the circumstances been inorc serious, Mr. -Tate said, he would have imposed a heavier penalty. y .

MISCELLANEOUS CASES.

John Courtenay Bell, farmer, Oakura, pleaded guilty to failure to give way to traffic approaching on his right when he was crossing the intersection of Devon and Dawson Streets on May. 16, and was fined £l, .with costs £l. SeniorSergeant McCrorie said Bell’s car collided with a car driven by Misg Le Fleming. Defendant said he had .been driving for 14 years and it was his first appearance before the Court. The corner was bad and he was giving too much attention to the left side, thinking .that anyone coming down Dawson Street towards a tram line would be sure to be taking care to go slowly. down a steep hill. William C. S. Purdie, Who was charged on remand with negligent driving and with being in a state of intoxication while, in charge, of a motor-ear, was remanded again until" June 22. Bail-was renewed on the same terms as previously.