BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10343, 20 May 1901, Page 2

BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT

THE LICENSEE OF THE RUTLAND

HOTEL FINED JfilOl

Judgment' was given by Mr; H. EyreKenny, S.M., at the Police, Court this morning, in the charges- brought by the police against tbe licensee of the Rutland Hotel for permitting < drunken-ness-in the hotel on the 16th >of April and for selling; liquor on^the same date to R. B. Smith -while ho was already in' a state of intoxication. The Magistrate explainedc.that by consent" tho two charges wer»> heard together,' and expressed the opinion that there was , absolutely no evidence to' support the first one. In tho second charge it was proved that a glass of whiskey and a bottle of champagne had been supplied, to Smiih, But the only evidence for the prosecution as. to the state "of Smith' was that given by Uridge, -who himself was in a doubtful condition. Mr Kenny went on to deal -with the question of what being in a state of intoxication w«s', and quoted* Sir Robert Stout's views on, the" matter, in which, the Chief Justice contended! that in- | toxication (the word used in' the Act) was not an equivalent of . drunkenness, and that intoxication was a state in whioh from intoxicating liquor a person had lost the normal , control- of his bodily and mental faculties. Continuing, Mr Kenny said he felt bound to hold in this case that in 'order to cfocure a conviction the prosecution must prove by the evidence of one or more reliable and sober witnesses that unmistakeable overt sots' of intoxication were committed at the time liquor was supplied. The evidence of drunkenness must noti rest on the opinion of one person who noticed occult signs of intoxication, that no ono else could 'notice, f The evidence showed that Smith was on 'the verge but did not display any .-outward signs of intoxication, and, probably the mixture of liquor and the motion of the cab afterwards overcome MmV" Defendant" would also be acquitted on this charge. ..,-.'' There was a further charge, against defendant for permitting drunkenness ori his licensed .premised on the same date. His Worship held that the evidence disclosed the fact 'that there was not the slightest doubt, that "Smith was lying drunk in the bar when, Mr James went to look for him, and that the barjnnri was awaro of the faotror was wilfully blind. Constable . Campbell had aim telephoned to Mr Faber to tho effect that he had been informed that Smith was in the. hotel, but. notwithstanding this the licensee tbofr no steps' to blear him. out, but on the other hand gave evasive answers both to tho constable and to M.r James..- Ho ref rotted to say ao, but the landlord in his «as 9 came, very badly 'out of it. He was guilty of the grossest carelessness, in spite of three dlstinot warnings. He was sorry to>have; to make these remarks, as he personally knew that Mr Fabsr was a respectable man and that when he hod the Patea Hotel he had kept it well. '.^Tha offence was a bad, one, and he would have to impose a substantial penalty. _ He must differentiate between • the hotelkeeper who did a flourishing- business and the man who kept a small accommodation house. A fine of .£10;: would be inflicted, with costs 0s 9d. s

It's football that works up "the muscle. And gives a man plenty of dash, It's kick, it's scrum, and if s bustle. And a general looiringffoir lash. • In the good old hunt for tho leather,' If a cold you should hay© -to endure. You will soon pull yourself altogether, With Woods' Great Peppermint Cure.>