LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 452, 23 March 1899, Page 19

LEGAL & MAGISTERIAL NOTES

Police Magistrate M'Cormick took a proper stand at a recent prosecution at Warrnambool (Victoria). Mrs Lawton, of the Turf Club Hotel, was proceeded against for allowing a drunken person to remain on her premises. At 1 a.m. on Sunday, sth February, two constables entered the hotel, and found a man lying on a sofa in a room, whom they said was asleep “ and helplessly drunk.” They did not awaken him. The P.M. held the case not proved, the evidence being inconclusive. The man might possibly have been in a fit or otherwise ill. Such cases must be proved up to the hilt. Not supposititious, but legal proof was required, and he had no hesitation in dismissing the charge. Every sensible person will agree with the magistrate.

At the Yinnar races in Victoria early this month, Mr C. E. Miller, of Murdoch’s Hotel, Morwell, held a temporary publican’s license for the booth. Shortly after 7 p.m. on the day of the races, Miller’s assistants sold a couple of nobbiers of drink. As the license did not permit the sale of liquor after 7 p.m., Miller was prosecuted at the Morwell Court for allowing the booth to be open. He was fined £2, and costs. Then his assistant, one Doble, was prosecuted for selling liquor without a license, and fined £25, or one months’ imprisonment. Miller paid both fines, and the Bench recommended him to apply to the Governor-in-Council for a reduction of the second fine. This seems carrying out the strict letter of the law with a vengeance, and it is with agreeable satisfaction that I note the recommendation or the Bench.

In its issue of January 20, the London L. V. Gazette gives comparisons of the various excise and customs’ duties affecting the Trade in the different colonies, and comments as follows:— “ These duties are, of course, raised for'fiscal purposes only, for though the colonies are all more or less Protectionist, protection tactics can hardly apply to wines and spirits, the articles manufactured being consumed abroad and in this country far more than at home. The Australian wines are highly esteemed here, and that from the Cape shows signs of coming to the front also ; but the higher class wines are not much manufactured in the colonies, so there is little to protect. And as a rule the spirits are crude j and, as used, only fit for consumption of the natives; though with age the better sorts bid fair to develop in a way calculated to seriously rival the productions of France. But a glance at the table shows great variation in the rates of duties levied, and there is room for an agitation amongst ou r selves and our Colonial brothers in trade for one universal rate of duty, so as to permit any excess of imports into one colony being carried to the other, without any loss, by means of rebate of the duty originally paid. The rate being the same throughout, an exchange of trade, or rather the passing on of trade, would be readily affected. The idea may be Utopian ; but it will come nevertheless in time amongst English-speaking nations.”

Serving a constable with drink while on duty is a more serious offence than is generally supposed, and in the following case the publican was fortunate in getting off : —George Richard Jones, of the Bridge Inn, Bridge Street, Worcester (England), was summoned for selling drink to a constable on duty. On the date in question P.C. Gregory with a friend went to defendant’s, and was served by the barmaid with whisky, which he consumed, and which the friend paid for; he was at the time on duty, in uniform, and had not the authority of his superior officer. Defendant saw the officer served. Joseph White Ordish, son of the landlady of the Falcon Inn, Broad Street, stated that he met P.C. Gregory m All Hallows, and at witness’ suggestion they went to the Bridge Inn, and were served with drink by the barmaid. P.C. Gregory stated that he was on duty in All Hallows when he went to the Bridge Inn with the last witness. When he went to the Bridge Inn he had been on duty four hours. He knew Ordish, and wenl with him to have a drink because it was cold. Mr Beauchamp, for the defence, urged that the point that the Bench would have to decide was whether or not the barmaid and the defendant, who was responsible for her actions, knew at the time the drink was drawn that it was being supplied to a constable. Annie Cuff, barmaid, gave evidence as to supplying drink to Ordish. The bar window was of such construction that when the drinks were supplied she could see no one but Ordish in the passage. The Chairman said the Bench thought all the witnesses were frank and truthful, and none of them desired to conceal thp truth. They thought the barmaid did not - know a Constable was being served. - The case was dismissed.

At the Auckland Police Coujt oiUTuesday of last week, before His Worship Mr H. S. Wardell, S M., Thomas Foley was charged that, being the licensee of the licensed premises known as the Shakespeare Hotel, situated in Wyndham Street, he did sell liquor to James Daniels, a person al-

ready in a state of intoxication. Sergeant Clarke conducted the prosecution, and Mr Baume for the defence pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Treanor deposed that on the date in question, March 4, at about five minntes past two in the afternoon, he was giving some orders to Constable Hooker in the vicinity of the Shakespeare Hotel, when he saw Daniels in a state of intoxicatiou enter the hotel. Witness and Constable Hooker followed in a few seconds, and found Daniels in the bar with a glass of beer in front of him, three parts empty. A young lad, the licensee’s son, was benind the bar, and in reply to the sergeant, said that he had served Daniels with beer. Witness said, “ What do you mean by serving aman in a beastly state of intoxication like this?” The boy replied that he (Daniels) was ‘ ‘ alljright. 4 The defendant then came into the bar, and witness pointed out to him his liability with regard to the law, if he served drunken men with liquor. The defendant said that his son was only relieving the barman for a-few minutes, and that he had orders from him (the defendant) to be sure never to serve drunken men. The barman subsequently told witness that he had refused Daniels liquor two or three times during the day. Witness arrested Daniels for drunkenness, who entered a plea of guilty at the Police Court the next morning, and a conviction was recorded. Constable Hooker corroborated the sergeant’s evidence. James Daniels deposed that he did not not remember anything that occurred from nine o’clock in the morning till some time in the night. He did not remember being either locked up or arrested. After the luncheon adjournment Mr Baume addressed the Court at some length, and mentioned the fact that although Mr Foley had kept a hotel for.twenty-two years there had never been anything against htm. His Worship, when giving judgment, said he could not approach a decision in the case withour having his mind very strongly influenced by the character that the police had given the defendant’s house. It was spoken of as highly respectable,, and they had it in evidence that the liquor on this occasion was served by a lad of 14, who was in the bar for a very temporary purpose. His own impression was that to make a man liable to conviction under the section in question there should be evidence of “constructive knowledge” of the condition of the man that was supplied with liquor. He was prepared to admit what the boy had stated to Sergeant Treanor, that, he did not think that the man Daniels was intoxicated. Probably the boy’s expeiience at the bar was not sufficient to enable him to discern the real condition of the man. Ho thought that the lad honestly believed that the man Daniels was at

the time not drunk, and, holding that, the defendant was not at fault. It was the duty of the licensee to see that any person in the charge of the bar, whether permanently or temporarily, was qualified for the position. In this case there might have been some negligence. The boy had been allowed, unwisely and unadvisedly, His Worship considered, to be in charge of the bar for the time being, but the present case was a very ’exceptional one, and taking into consideration the character of the house, and that the defendant had never been brought within the clutches of the statute, His Worship was prepared to dismiss the information.