A BUSY HOUR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18787, 22 May 1923, Page 9

A BUSY HOUR

SATURDAY EVENING INCIDENT AT CASTLEOTdFF. CHARGE AGAINST HOTEL LICENSEE FAILS. The Magistrate’s Court was engaged all yesterday afternoon in hearing a charge against Walter Rees Gibson, licensee of the Castlecliff Hotel, with permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises. Mr L. Cohen appeared for the defence, and Senior-Sergeant Lopdell conducted the case for the prosecution. On the application of Mr Cohen, all witnesses were ordered out of court. Senior-Sergeant Lopdell said that on April 21, Constable Sheehan, stationed at Castlecliff, got off a tramcar outside the Castlecliff Hotel at 5.43 p.m., and he saw a man under the influence of liquor enter the hotel. Twelve minutes later the constable went into the hotel and saw the man, J. C. Cousins, sitting on a form in the. bar, in a drunken sleep. The constable spoke to the barman (who had an assistant for the busy hour from 5 to 6 p.m.) and asked him to call the licensee, who came, and when Cousins was pointed out to him, the licensee thereupon put the man out. A friend came along and asked permission to take the man home. This was given, but the constable later found the man in the Mosstown Road. Constable Sheehan in his evidence said the licensee stated that Cousins did not get “like that here,” for he had just come off the car, which witness denied, having got off that ear himself. The licensee said that was the sort of thing he was up against—men in that condition coming from Wanganui, and he further said that the barman was too busy to attend to the man. Later witness arrested Cousins for drunkenness, and he was subsequently convicted. At the time of the arrest Cousins was very noisy and hardly able to keep his feet. Previously he had spoken to the barman about this sort of thing. To Mr Cohen: So far as the licensee himself was concerned, he was not well served by his employees. His permanent barman was not doing his best for him, and had not the interests of his employer at heart. So far as getting drink after hours was concerned, the licensee was an exemplary one. Replying further to Mr Cohen, the witness said that it was his business not to eject but to assist in putting drunken men out of bars. Why didn’t you arrest the man when he was about to enter the hotel instead of waiting 11 minutes to catch the licensee?—Witness replied that he was giving the licensee an opportunity of keeping his own house in order.

Further questioned by counsel for the defence, the witness said that with the men surrounding the bar, an observant barman could have seen the man sitting on the form. Obviously the man Cousins was asleep, sitting back oblivious to everything. Cousins was an excitable sort of man. When he arrested him the man was near the store, where Cooper, who had taken charge of Cousins to see him home, had left him after taking him that distance. Witness assisted Cousind into the tram-car, but he got out without assistance. He arrested Cousins five miles from the police station, and when he arrived there he had sobered up consider-

bly with the shock of the tram ride. He was not aware of any difference among the station officers as to whether Cousins was drunk.

Robert Alexander Cooper, labourer, residing at Castlecliff, said he saw the licensee putting out the man Cousins, and witness said he asked the constable to let him take the man home, to prevent his arrest. A stranger might think the man was drunk, but when he “had a few” he was inclined to talk a bit. Witness had not seen him “past the talking stage.” The constable arrested Cousins when he came out of the side gate from Marshall’s store. Cousins was talking fa good deal, and he heard him about thirty yards away. Witness had had a few drinks himself, and he could not say whether Cousins was drunk or sober.

To Mr Cohen: Cousins walked with witness, who did not help him once, but he staggered. He thought Cousins, who was carrying a bag, could have got home all right, and was capable of looking after himself, which was why witness left him. This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr Cohen, addressing the court, claimed that the evidence for the prosecution was contradictory. Counsel quoted authorities to show that, tl.-• charge of “permitting drunkenness” must fail, for the licensee did not knowingly permit drunkenness, nor did the barman, who. with about forty men surrounding the bar, could not see Cousins. Mr Cohen considered there was really no case to answer, for the constable’s evidence as to whether Cousins was drunk was contradicted by the witness Cooper. His Worship said he considered that the constable’s evidence was sufficient to convince him that Cousins was drunk

W. R. Gibson, the licensee, placed in the witness box, deposed that he knew Cousins to be in talkative moods, and at other times he would be morose. Witness said there were from 50 to 70 men in the bar when the constable came in and pointed out Cousins to him. He wont up to Cousins, lifted his hat, and asked him. “Are you drunk, Jack?” and Cousins said: “No, and if I am I didn’t get it here.” To the Senior-Sergeant: The barmen had instructions to look after the conduct of the hotel, not serve drunken men, and to call him if they would not go out He admitted saying to Cousins he might got witness into trouble. Cousins was not one who drinks excessively, and he could not say that he had seen him drunk. Two barmen were employed in the busy hours, from 5 to 6 p.m. Janies Marshall, storekeeper at Castlecliff, said that Cousins called at the store and asked if his boy had been for the bread. Witness

had known Cousins for about thirteen years, and he was of a very excitable nature. He had seen him under the influence of liquor, but he was not drunk when he called at the store. James Oliver (storekeeper) aud Robert Wilson (the assistant barman) also gave evidence for the defence. The latter said Cousins came up to the bar and got a pint of beer, but went behind the crowd in the bar to drink it. Cousins was not under the influence of liquor when he served him. This was about 5.30 p.m., about the time Constable Sheehan came in. This closed the case for the defence. The Magistrate, in his summing up, said there were two elements in the case. In the first place, the constable’s evidence showed that Cousins was drunk, and the evidence for the defence he thought did not entirely dispose of the police case. Cousins was temperamental and peculiar, and whatever his condition was, such condition led the constable to judge that he, was drunk. The second clement was the question of knowledge. This was not proved on the part of the licensee, and he could hardly hold there was any dereliction on the part of the barman. Cousins was a “quiet” drunk, and he went up and got his drink in a crowded bar. In these circumstances it would be expecting too much of the barman to notice Cousins sitting on the form. The Magistrate went on to point out that it was the duty of licensees to take notice of the growth of their business, w'hich meant that their responsibilities increased and more supervision was required. His Worship then dismissed the information.