MORE LAW ANOMALIES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1057, 9 June 1910, Page 22

MORE LAW ANOMALIES.

Hotelkeepers are victimised in England in much the same fashion as they are in New Zealand, by anomalies in the Licensing law. At the Liverpool County Court on April 22nd, a licensee was summoned for damages for an assault and battery committed by his barman upon a would-be customer while ejecting the latter from his employer’s premises under the following circumstances. Plaintiff’s version was that on February 19 th last, he entered the licensee’s premises and was supplied with drink which he had partly consumed when the barman forcibly ejected him, in doing which he knocked the plaintiff down and his head cam e into contact with the counter with the result that he was seriously injured. The barman’s evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff entered the house under the influence of drink, in fact he had refused to serve him earlier the same evening and when he refused to serve the man on the second occasion he became abusive, used filthy language and declined to leave the house. In ejecting the man, as' he was bound to do, the barman said he used no more force than was necessary and alleged that the man received his injuries in attempting to re-enter the house a third time by a side door when he fell down some steps against the counter and received his injuries. The County Court judge held that the plaintiff’s behaviour on the occasion did not amount to drunken, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly conduct within the meaning of section 18 of the Licensing Act, 1872 (which was relied on as a defence) so as to entitle the barman to forcibly turn the man out.' ' He awarded the plaintiff £7 7s damages and costs instead of £l5 ' claimed, which he considered excessive. It should be'mentioned that a few day's after the assault the barman was sum-

moned before the Magistrates and fined £1 and costs. The anomaly is this: —If the assault had been committed by the licensee and he had been fined instead of his barman the conviction and payment of the fine would have been a bar to any subsequent proceedings in a Civil Court but at Common law a master is responsible for the acts of his servant while acting within the scope of his employment as this barman was in ejecting an objectionable customer from his employer’s house-