THE POLICE AND THE TRADE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 746, 23 June 1904, Page 23

THE POLICE AND THE TRADE.

THE ROYAL HOTEL CASE

The further hearing of the charges against Percy Isaac, licensee of the Royal Hotel, of allowing drunkenness upon his licensed premises on April 27, and selling liquor to Albert McLyndon,. an intoxicated person, was continued before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court on Friday last. The Hon. J. A. Tole, Crown Solicitor, appeared fertile prosecution, while Mr F. E. Baume defended.

Counsel for the defence, in opening his case, said he proposed to call evidence toprove that McLyndon, when arrested by Sergeant Drew and Constable Forbes, was not drunk. Had he been drunk before he entered the hotel then the policewere negligent in their duty for not arresting him there and then. He preferred' to believe that Sergeant Drew knew that, the man was not drunk, and that, in acting as he did, he did so purely with the intention of getting a case against the licensee. The witnesses he would call would state that McLyndon, when he went into the Royal Hotel, walked perfectly steadily. The magistrate pointed out that though a man might go into an hotel under such conditions, still he might be perfectly drunk, and also that when McLyndon, entered the hotel he might have pulled himself together. Mr Baume : The man was not drunk.

Then your case is that the police arrested a perfectly sober man, and locked him up in the cells all night.

Counsel then proceeded to call evidence.

Reginald Emanuel, hairdresser, whose establishment is in the Royal Hotel, said that he noticed McLyndon when he was entering the Royal Hotel. He was then walking steadily, and showed absolutely no signs of liquor. Sergeant Drew and Constable Forbes entered later, and emerged again with McLyndon between them. He was still walking steadily and seemed to require no assistance. Cross-examined by Mr Tole, witness admitted that he was never within more than twenty yards of Mcl.yndon. Ernest Dufaur, head accountant in L. D. Nathan’s stated that the licensee of the Commercial Hotel, drew his attention to McLyndon, while he was in High-street. McLyndon's conduct was like that of an “ ordinary rough sailor.”

Ellon Cane, the barmaid who served McLyndon. declared that McLyndon, on entering the hotel, ordered drinks for himself and his companion. McLyndon paid, and in the course of the conversation which ensued talked like a perfectly sober came in. and McLyndon was drinking at the bar. the sergeant inquired if she knew he was a prohibited person. She said she did not. Further questions were put, and then the sergeant and constable took him away, McLyndon walking steadily.

To Mr Tole : She was not prepared to leny that she swore before the justices hat McLyndon showed signs of liquor, she would, however, declare that Mei ynlon showed absolutely no signs of drink, md was perfectly sober. ])r, Lewis stated that when an intoxi:ated man was arrested for drunkenness ;he fact would tend to excite him,, and nake him more unsteady than he was jefore. . .. A groom named William Shearman said ie was in the Royal Hotel when McLynion was arrested. Prior to that there was nothing in his manner to attract atjention. . “ And how do you remember that it was April 27 ?’’ asked Mr 1 “ Well,” replied the witness, “ a statement of Miss Cane’s was read over to me n Mr Baume’s office this morning.” In answer to His Worship, he said that here was a meeting' of witnesses there, and admitted that his previous statement vas not correct. He heard the statement vhile it was being read over to Miss lane. r The manager of the hotel (Mr J. (Vinter) was also called. This closed the case for the defence. His Worship, in delivering his judgment, said that the only question before him was as to whether McLyndon was drunk when served. In face of the evidence riven he considered that he was. Apart rom the evidence of the police altogether, the evidence of Mr Atkins, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, showed that McLyndon was intoxicated. With reerence to the conduct of Sergeant Drew n proceeding to get an extra constable icfore he entered the hotel, he was of the opinion that the sergeant made a mistake. What he should have done when re saw McLyndon entering the hotel was to have gone and warned the licensee. It would have been better. In saying this, aowever, he did not mean to say that the sergeant had committed a breach of his iuty. His explanation was that it was a general rule among the police, when such a case was likelv to happen, to go and get corroborative evidence. However ie was satisfied that McLyndon was intoxicated when served, but he was satisfied at the same time that Miss Cane did not know it. McLyndon probably pulled himself together to evade detection. But then again, the evidence also showed that Mr Isaac had done his best to keep his hotel as respectable as he could, and had tried to conform with the licensing laws as much as possible. There was no doubt that under the law. as it now stood, there were breaches of the Licensing Act being committed dailv in every town in New Zealand. It was hard that a license should have to be endorsed when a licensee was convicted of supplying a prohib-

ited person, and the same applied to drunken people. '1 he law was not fair upon that point. His opinion was, ana always had been, that the magistrate in such cases should have discretionary power in the matter of indorsements, that offences under the licensing law should be classed, and that licensees should be punished according to the otfence committed. When a licensee deliberately broke the law he deserved to be dealt' with severely, but the present was not a case of that kina. Looking at the whole of the circumstances, had he had the power he would have refused to endorse. m w r Mr Baume pointed out that as Bis noi«hip was going to convict he might do so upon the lighter charge only, as it would not reflect so upon Mr Isaac. His Worship said he did not mean to reflect any culpability on the part of the licensee. However, he could not do as Mr Baume suggested, because the lighter charge of “ permitting drunkenness upon licensed premises ” had not been proved. It was not established that Mr Isaac or the barmaid ” knew that McLyndon was intoxicated ” when he was served. He must dismiss that information. Un the other, however, he must convict, but had he had discretionary power he would not have endorsed. He would have refused to do so. But there the law was, and lie must endorse. „ Mr Baume : Can’t you make the tine heavy so that we can appeal ? _ His Worship : No ; I think it is a wrong thing—and I have been supported by the Supreme Court judges in my opinion for a magistrate to increase a fine simply to o-ive the right of appeal. In the present case I should not be doing right in inflicting a fine of more than £l. Mr Baume : Which really means a fine of £7OOO. . His Worship : Well, Parliament is sitting shortly, and there is the opportunity for an alteration. , Mr Tole : It is absolutely necessary for the administration of the licensing laws. His Worship said he would like to add that in regard to the alteration of the ■watch-house record book, that he thought it should not have been done. At thre seme time he believed that it was not done with any wrong purpose. The licensee was fined £l. and costs £4 4s, and an endorsement was ordered.