CHARGE DISMISSED

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19763, 19 December 1935, Page 2

CHARGE DISMISSED

CASE AGAINST LICENSEE. PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS. (Special to Times.) CAMBRIDGE, Wednesday. L . vsa.'sn' fn-dav in the case in which ueo cui iioga, licensee or the Masonic Hotel, was charged wUh permitting drunkenness on his premises on October 26 last. t t . tvia inds-ment stated: 1 The nrst pari oi the evidence for the prosecution consists of the evidence of two relief or ( ? e lf h^l r fl °i? otorohanga who had come to Cambridge for the purpose of attending the race meeting on Labour Day. They had two drinks at the Central Hotel and t went to the Masonic Hotel, where they had a drink. Defendant’s barman said he first caw Hickey and McKay about 5 P-m. on the efith They came into the bar and asked for drinks. He refused them, considering ffiey had had enough. He ordered them to leave and when they walked away rrom the counter he thought they A!n„- B:0 iof: but did not see if they had actually left the bar. About half-an-hour later his attention was called to these two meit at the other end of the bar. Two customers complained that the men had drunk their beer. He again told them to go and they moved back towards the door. He did not see them go out but believed they had gone. He later saw them near the door talking to two police officers. “ When the police officer visited defendant’s hotel about 6.50 on tbe 2 6th there was a large crowd In the bar and they saw Hicky and- McKay, who were then obviously drunk. The officers pointed this out to the barman, who replied that he had refused to serve them and had ordered them out, but they had refused to go. The barman had asked the police to put them out and they were then put out and locked up. A Credible Witness, “ Counsel for defendant had quoted several authorities and the actions of the defendant’s barman appear to compare favourably with tbe actions of the barmen In the cases quoted and I am not therefore prepared to hold that the evidence establishes a permission or drunkenness within the principles laid down. “ It might he suggested that McKay and Hickey became drunk as the result of liquor supplied by the defendant’s barman and that the case is therefore distinguishable. As to this,-there Is a conflict of evidence. Those two witnesses say that they had, In the case or one of them ‘ a drink ’ and In the case of the other, he does not know liow many, on the defendant’s premises. The barman said that he did not supply them. I can place no reliance on the evidence of Hickey and McKay, whose condition was such that they have but the haziest recollection of the afternoon’s events. The barman was called as a witness for the prosecution, who put him forward as a credible witness and I must, therefore, give his evidence due weight. It Is true that an application was made to treat him as a hostile witness, but I declined to allow this. “ It might be further suggested that the constable’s evidenco that the barman said he had ordered the men out, but they had refused to go, rendered It incumbent on the barman to take further steps. I am not satisfied, however, that there was any active rerusal to go unless force was used. The word ‘ refusal * may have been used In the sense that they had not gone, and cannot, 1 think, bt taken to impeach the barman’s evidence that ho believed they were going and had gone. “ The information will therefore be dismissed.’’