THE LICENSING LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2624, 5 October 1909, Page 2

THE LICENSING LAW.

ALLEGED BREACH

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr AY. A. Barton, John Alexander Lucas, hotelkeeper (Mr G. Stock) was charged that on the Hth September he did allow drunkenness on his premises. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Hutton conducted the case for the police. Constable Scott deposed that at a little past 3 p.m. on the 11th September he was passing the Coronation Hotel when the manager came to the door and called him in. Witness went into a parlor connected with the bai by a slide. In the parlor were tour Maoris and one European. The European, Irwin, was drunk. Three of the Maoris were sober, the other being slightly intoxicated. There were no of liquor about. On entering the parlor Mr Egan, the manager, said to Irwin: “Now, I've brought the police, are you going to pay for those drinks, or are you not?” He mentioned the amount'would be 2s 6d. Irwin made a long rambling statement to the effect that the drinks were not ordered by him but were shouted by one of th Maoris and pointed to one, Hoaie Te AY aka. The Maoris all protested that Irwin shouted the dnnks lrwm asked how many drinks lie had Jiau there answered he had only had one Witness 1 replied that he should not have been supplied with liquor at all jn his condition. After Irwin had again t“d io pa;, Mr Eon asked hm, to leave the premises. Irwin sa-d A 1 rmht,” but did not go. Witness then ordered him to leave the premises, an as he would not go ejected and ai rested him for drunkenness. At the station witness informed the Sergeant of what had taken place, and the be.aeant and witness returned to the hotel and saw the barman who m answer to the Sergeant’s question as to li*m s condition, said he was not drunk. The barman said he supplied Irwm with one drink but took it away before lie had time to drink it, because lie noticed his condition. The accused, Irwm, brought before the Court was finally convicted. b Mr Stock objected to this being taken as evidence. . , , Witness, cross-examined by -Hi Stock, said he told Irwin he had better pay for .the drinks. Irwin refused and witness told him to leave the hotel. Irwin knew what he was doing to a certain extent. Edward Patten, barman at the Masonic Hotel, called, said he was shown a man in the cells on the night of the lltli. He (witness) had seen the same tuan in the Masonic bar about 2.45 on the same afternoon, when he and three Maoris were refused a drink as the man was very strange in Ins manner. Cross-examined, witness said the man had insulted one of the barmaids the night before, and orders had been given not to serve him. . Re-examined witness, said Irwin had been drinking about the town for about a fortnight. His conduct was prettybad, but he was not suffering from excessive drinking.

Hoaue Te Ran, Awapuni. gave evidence as to having been in the Coronation Hotel with Irwin and three Natives on Saturday, 11th September. They were supplied with liquor, and Irwin was stopped after drinking a little; as he would not pay. In witness’ opinion Irwin was not drunk until the constable interfered with him. The constable told Invin that if he did not pay for the drinks lie would have to leave the hotel. Hoani Te Waka, Henri Pauro and Wharepakea Tawhiao also gave evidence as to being in the Coronation Hotel with Irwin. Thos. Irwin, laborer, said that be did not remember beinrr either in the Masonic on the 11th September or of having beeii refused drink anywhere. He had a slight recollection of being with some natives at the Coronation Hotel, but did not remember having had any drink. He just remembered being arrested, nothing more. He had been drinking for about three weeks and was in such a condition that he could not Temember. In cross-examination witness said he must have had drink on the-11th. Sergt. Hutton gave evidence relating to the. case, stating that Irwin was suffering from delirium tTemens at tho station.

In answer to His AVorship the witness said Irwin was excesively drunk when brought to the station, his condition being critical. After the luncheon adjournment the case for the defendant was commenced. Mr Stock said the evidence of the witnesses did not show that the mail .was drunk. All the Native witnesses had said that the constable had given Irwin the alternative of paying for the drinks or of leaving the hotel. He submitted that even had the man been drunk it was not evident to the barman or Egan, as the manager would not have put his head in a noose by sending Tor the police. As there was no evidence to show that the man was drunk the ease would have to he dismissed. James Butler, barman at the Coronation Hotel, said ho remembered the Natives and Irwin coming to the hotel on the afternoon of the 11th of September. All the men called for their drinks, no one giving the order. AVitness did not notice anything wrong with Irwin’s condition at that time. Asked who was paying for the drinks the Maoris point, ed to Irwin. Irwin said he was not paying and pointed to a Maori, who refused to pay. AVitness then rang up the manager who went into the parlor to collect for the drinks. The Maoris said that Irwin was to pay. As no one would pay the manager went and brought Constable Scott. Irwm refused to pay when asked by the Constable 'Hie constable then said to Irwin that there were only two things to do, that was to pay for the drinks or go out. Irwin replied he would sooner pay than be shown up like that, and searched his pockets. Ho then said, “No, I won’t pay. I’ll stand on my dig.’’’ Constable Scott then ejected the man. Continuing witness said all the drinks were on the slide when ho went to ring the hell. When he came back the Maoris had taken some of their drink and witness went and took tho

pewter from Irwin. II he had taken any drink it was only a quarter of an inch, and the space might have been caused by the froth going down. After the manager went for the constable witness looked at Irwin and saw that he was very shaky. AVitness had not noticed this when Irwin came in.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not see Irwin come in. AVitness knew it was an offence to serve an. intoxicated man. Irwin seemed to get excited when the constable came in. AVitness did not think Irwin had time to consume any liquor while witness went to ring for the manager. To His AVorship: AATtness said he would not like to say Irwin was sober when he suplied him with liquor. He was suffering from the effects of liquor. To Sergt. Hutton: He did not take any means of ascertaining Irwin’s condition. AVitness would have supplied Irwin had he known as much as he did now.

James Egan, manager of the Coronation Hotel, gave evidence that the licensee of the hotel was in bed at the time of the incident on the lltli. YVitness went to the parlor and spoke to Irwin, and did not notice anything wrong with him. AY hen the constable came in he 6aid to Irwin he had two things to do, to pay for the drinks or go out. Irwin spoke rationally, but seemed to get confused when the constable spoke to him. Cross-examined witness said that sober men sometimes refused to pay - AVitness heard the constable say that Irwin was not in a condition to lie served hut did not thmk it necessary to reply to the constable that the man was sober. At the conclusion of the evidence liis

Worship said ho would like to look over the authorities and would reserve his judgment.