CHARGE AGAINST AN HOTELKEEPER.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 996, 8 April 1909, Page 21

CHARGE AGAINST AN HOTELKEEPER.

A PROSECUTION THAT FAILED. Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M., disposed of a case at the Auckland Police Court on Friday in which a good deal of interest was taken in Trade circles. The case was one in which Peter Farquhar, licensee of the Royal George Hotel was charged with having supplied liquor to Albert, George and William Green, junr., persons already intoxicated, and also with having permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises on March 15.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, three young fellows, Albert, William and George Green, entered the bar of the Royal George Hotel soon after noon on March 15, to “work their lunch down” with “ shandygaff, ” They were engaged with their father, William Green sear, in building a high chimney, and as they took a long time over their lunch the father went in search of them and asked the barman not to supply them with any more drink owing to the hazardous nature of their work. They were quite sober at the time the father saw them. Albert Green deposed that he and his brothers had a pint of beer with their lunch and then went on, having three more. The barman went off duty at this stage, and then the licensee served them with three, if not four, more pints. A row occurred, in which he and his brothers were arrested at about a quarter to four. The licensee tried to put them out after witness knocked a pewter over accidentally, and another man struck witness’ youngest brother in the neck, knocking him down. The others chimed in, and the general melee was interrupted by the police, who had been summoned by the licensee. In reply to Mr- Dyer the witness said if he was to sit down quietly he could drink twenty or thirty pints and then get home by himself. To Mr. Mays he said “ If I have five pints I am just the same as if I had twenty. I am drunk.”

George and William Green both swore they were drunk when the row occurred and the police Were called in, but Archibald Elkington who was in the bar of the Royal George when the licensee entered, said he had one drink at the Green’s expense. While he was there they had three drinks. The three.men were, in witness’ opinion. perfectly sober. They threw some pint pots about, and this drew a protest from the licensee, who told them to go, but they refused. One of them used an obscene expression to the licensee, who jumped over the bar to enforce his order. The Greens attacked him, and witness went to his assistance. He was also attacked, and a general scrimmage ensued until the arrival of the police, who also received some rough treatment. If the Greens had kept quiet, the licensee would have been quite justified

in supplying them with more drink, as they were quite sober-. Mr. Earl: They accuse you of being the cause of the row, and that you commenced it by knocking the young fellow down. —I knocked him down when he came at me. I went to try and protect the licensee, when the three of them were on to him.

Sergeant McPhee, after describing the melee in the bar, and the pursuit and capture of Albert Green, after the arrest of his two brothers, said that William Green was quite sober, and Albert Green was in the same state. If witness had been a hotelkeeper he would have served them. George Green, the youngest man, was under the influence of drink, but a rough-and-tumble might have affected him. Neither of the three could have been arrested for drunkenness alone. Even George was able to walk and talk properly, and if he had been quiet before the fight, he could have been served again. , Constable Lipstone and William Huckstep were also of opinion that the Greens were not drunk.

Mr. Dyer, at this stage, said that to his mind the evidence showed that these men, when placed on their resources in the Police Court, had raised the excuse for their conduct that they were under the influence of liquor. Of all the witnesses who had given evidence, the only ones who said they were drunk were the men themselves. The evidence for the defence would doubtless corroborate that of the police and others, that they were sober. On the evidence it would be unsafe to convict, and the information were dismissed accordingly.