THE HOTEL CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7583, 23 December 1902, Page 3

THE HOTEL CASES.

PUBLICANS CONfaCTEDv , This ; morning at the Magistrate's CourtMr Bishop, S. M., gave reserved judgment in the oase Police v. Thomas Broadway, the licensee of the Shades Hotel. His Worship said; the defendant was charged with two offences under Section 146 of the Licensing , Act, 1881, on two separate informations, one charge being for selling liquor ±o a person already in a state of intoxication on Nov. 29, arfd. the. other for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on the same <fcvy. He reviewed the evidence given on the day of the hearing, and said that it was evident from' the man ijpillane's conduct that while in the hotel he was becoming more and more helpless,'until he finally collapsed. The policeman who was called in had, .at* any rate, no doubt as to the cause of the man's condition, for he described' him as being the drunkest man he had ever arrested. The watchhouse-keeper also described him as being helplessly drunk, and Ms behaviour on the way to the Hospital was generally drunken. Dr Crooke, who received him into the Hospital, 1 stated that he was very drunk, and ibis behaviour was so violent that a constable bald to take charge of him during the night. He was • subsequently convicted of drunkenness at the Police Court and fined. 'I am satis■fled," continued! his Worship. "that Spillans was in a state of intoxication when he first went into the defendant's hotel, that night. After having drink in the -public bar and remaining there .for some fifteen or twenty minu^fes, the party went together into the private "bar, and there is no ; doubt that Spillane stood at the bar counter and was again supplied with drink, when there could have been no mistake, ab all on anyone's part who/ took the Jrouble to look at the man that he was drunk. There were. \two barmaids serving in this bar. Both have given evidence; and both have sworn that the man did not have any drink in that bar. They both state .that they saw him there and noticed that he had already had too much, and told- him so, and refused his request to be supplied with more. One of them says that she could not 'have mistaken his condition, and therefore would not be likely to have served him. One of them goes so far as to deny positively the evidence of the witnesses Kirk, Hale and Obery as to their being supplied with drink in that' bar that .evening, or as to tlieiT having come into the bar at all with Spillane. I cannot believe the evidence of s the barmaids on this point, and I accspt the evidence of the three men as the wit-nesses-of truth. To m> mind the condition of the man was unmistakable, and it is only in prosecutions of this nature that Si are asked to believe the extraordinari y rapid transitions/from "perfectly sober to "helplessly drunk.." Nor .are we ordinarily asked.tb believe that the condition of /man who :^s been graduaUy becoming more and 1 more drunk, with all the ,Sd evidences * that coofitito, would tbJ likely to be mistaken if any discnmmation were used, for a sudden attack of illness, which, as has been contended on behalf of the defence, was the' case m this instance. I shall hold on the facto (1) that there was a transaction in the .nature of a sale ki the. supplying of liquor to Spite by the barmaid in the private bar, and (4) that the defendant by 'his. servants permitted drunkenness to take place on his premises. In the case til Hope v. Warburton (1892, Q.8.D., 135) it was decided that it was not necessary to prove an actual sale to constitute the offence of permitting drunkenness, and. that serving the man with drink was not material to tho offence -at all The facts' in the present case go a great deal farther than this, and in my opinion leave no room fear doubt as to the commission of the offence within the meaning of tho statute. The question of what constitutes a sale under Section 146 appears to be amply decided by Scratchard v. Johnson (57 L.J.M.C. 41), and it seems to me that the conditions that were wanting in the cases of Dwyer v. Herman are present in this case. I shall convict the defendant on both charges and fine him £2 with costs on each information, the conviction for drunkenness to be endorsed on. the license. Judgment was also given in the case Police v. Herbert Wm. Piper, the licensee of the Gladstone Hotel, charged with selling liquor after licensed hours. Mr Bishop held the charge to 'be proved, and fined the defendant 40s and> costs, an endorsement to follow. ,