|
Thanet Advertiser, Saturday 25 April 1896.
Another Ramsgate Publican Summoned.
Charge of Permitting Drunkenness.
The Bench Reserve Their Decision.
There was a very large attendance of Licensed Victuallers and others at
the Ramsgate Police Court on Monday. The public portion of the Court was
crowded, the attention being the summons of another publican. The
magistrates on the Bench were:- Mr. H. Weigall (in the chair,) Captain
L. W. Vaile, Messrs. W. P. Blackburn, W. Curling, Chapman, M. J. Poole
and S. R. Wilson.
What Led To The Proceedings.
Morrris P. Golden was first arranged before the justices on a charge of
being drunk on licensed premises on the 15th of April.
Defendant pleaded guilty.
P.C. Sandom said:- On Wednesday, 15th April, I was on duty at
Market-place, shortly before 4 o'clock. I saw defendant cross the
Market-place. He was staggering very much. When he got to the corner by
Mr. Rowe's shop he ran against the corner, although there was no one
else on the pavement at the time. He went staggering up King Street
until he got to the "Cinque Ports Arms," premises occupied by Mr. Holyer.
I followed him immediately and when I got to the door I beckoned to P.C.
Graham who was coming down King Street. He came into the house. We saw
defendant in front of the bar drinking liquor. He was "obviously" drunk.
Anyone could see he was drunk by the look on his face. He was leaning on
the counter.
Asked if he had anything to say to the Court defendant said he was very
sorry. It would not happen again.
The bench inflicted a fine of £1 including costs, in default ten days.
Defendant promised to pay the fine in the afternoon.
The Charge Against The Landlord.
Nicholas C. Holyer, landlord of the "Cinque Ports Arms," was then
charged with unlawfully permitting drunkenness on his premises on the
15th April.
Defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. W. A. Hubbard "Town Clerk," appeared for the police, and Mr. J.
Emery for defendant.
Mr. Hubbard, opening the case, said he thought it would be convenient
that a further count should be added to the charge, and he therefore
caused a summons to be issued that defendant should also be charged with
selling liquor to an intoxicated person. He suggested that it would be
convenient for them to be taken together.
Mr. Emery said no other summons had been served and therefore no further
charge could be brought against his client.
Mr. Hubbard:- I was under the impression it had been served.
The Clerk explained that the Chief Constable laid the information that
morning at his (the Clerks) office and the summons had been prepared in
case the Bench allowed this application and Mr. Emery consented to it.
Of course it was entirely a matter for Mr. Emery's discretion. He (the
Clerk) presumed the facts were the same in both cases, and, if Mr. Emery
did not object, they should be taken together.
Mr. Emery said he should object and he thought the Clerk would advise
the Bench that no other charge could be added at the present time, and
that this charge must first be heard on its merits. He did not think the
magistrates could go into any other charge which defendant had had no
notice.
The Clerk said if Mr. Emery would consent to his client being served
with the other summons now the whole case could be taken together.
Mr. Hubbard suggested that this course would be more convenient.
Mr. Emery still objected to another charge being proceeded with and the
one charge was then taken.
Mr. Hubbard said the present charge was instituted under Section 13 of
35 and 36 Vic. Cap. 94, under which any licensed person who committed
drunkenness on his premises was liable to a penalty of £10. Defendant
had been in business as a licensed victualler in Ramsgate for a great
number of years, and he had nothing to say against his character. He was
a gentleman of respectability, and in this case they did not ask for a
severe penalty to be imposed, except such a penalty that would mark the
views of the justices, that publicans, should take or care to diminish
the scene, or rather crime, of drunkenness in Ramsgate. In this case he
thought he would be able to prove that there had been gross negligence
on the part of the manager of the "Cinque Ports Arms." Mr. Hubbard
proceeded to review the evidence he would call, and mentioned that P.C..
Sandham would go into the witness box, stating that he was a perfectly
reliable officer, having been in the force 15 years. He also pointed out
that in consequence of some observations made by the Recorder at the
Sandwich Sessions, in a somewhat similar case, when he said it was well
to have the evidence of a medical man, the Chief Constable thought,
under the circumstances, that it would be advisable to send for a
medical man. Dr. Styan came and at once saw that the man Golden was
intoxicated. He had also thought it well to subpoena Mr. Wilkes,
landlord of the "Stag's Head," who must necessarily be an unwilling
witness, but an honourable one he was quite sure, and at whose house the
man Golden was a few minutes before refused drink. Concluding, Mr.
Hubbard said it was a most important thing that in all towns, Ramsgate
included, that all publicans should do their best to prevent
drunkenness, and that could only be done by themselves or by seeing that
their assistants should exercise due care as to the condition of persons
to whom they sold liquor. If this due care was exercised there was no
doubt that this scene would be very much decreased. He therefore asked
that a suitable fine should be imposed so that publicans might be
warned, and that they and their assistants would take every possible
care to prevent drink being sold to drunken persons.
He then called P.C. Sandham, who said:- I was in the Market-place on
Wednesday, 15th April, at 3:55. I saw a man name Golden cross from Queen
Street to King Street. He was drunk and was staggering along. He is the
same person who has just been convicted. I saw him go towards the "Cinque
Ports Arms" and go in. At that time I was some distance from him. I
immediatly followed him. When I got to the door I beckoned to P.C.
Graham to come in with me. I then went in with Graham just behind me. UI
there found the man golden leaning with his left arm on the counter. He
had a glass containing liquor in his right hand. I then called out that
man is not to have anything to drink here. Miss Holyer was apparently in
charge of the bar. I crossed from the door to where Golden was standing
and tried to preventing him drinking the liquor, but before I could do
so he finished it. It was whiskey. P.C. Graham came round the other side
of Golden and when he put his glass down he took it up and smelt it and
Miss Holly said "He has had whiskey." I said to Miss Holyer "Didn't you
notice the man's condition?" She replied "I did not notice anything the
matter with him." There was only the bar between Golden and Miss Holyer.
I then asked Golded his name and address. When I asked him the question
he turned around and looked at me as well as he could (Laughter.) he was
so drunk he could hardly look at me. Anyone can see the man was drunk.
The Clerk pointed out that the witness could not speak as to other
persons' opinions.
Mr. Hubbard thought a policeman could give expert evidence.
Mr. Emery questioned whether a constable could give expert evidence.
Mr. Hubbard then withdrew the question.
Witness (continuing):- He then moved from the counter and staggered
across the front of the bar and fell down onto a seat, a form, under the
window. Miss Holyer at once said, "I can now see the man is drunk." Both
P.C. Graham and myself assisted him off the seat, and as he refused his
name and address I took him to the police station. I afterwards or Mr.
Holyer, the landlord of the premises, in the presence of his daughter,
and told him that his daughter admitted serving a drunken man. Mr.
Holyer replied "I generally go to lie down for half an hour after dinner
and I have given my daughter full instructions not to serve anyone she
has any doubt about," Miss Holyer said. "At the time Golden entered the
bar I was not in the bath.
Mr. Hubbard asked the witness to describe the appearance which led him
to the opinion that Golden was drunk.
Witness:- Well, by the appearance of his face. His eyes were half
closed. He had a red complexion, and his moustache - I know the man very
well - instead of lying down as it does, stuck out (Laughter.) His voice
was thick and I couldn't understand him. He muttered in his throat.
Cross-examined by Mr. Emery:- I saw Golden this morning, and, in my
opinion, he was then sober.
Had he a red face this morning?
Yes, but not so red as the other day.
Cross-examination continued:- I consider he spoke distinctly this
morning. When I went into the bar on Wednesday he was leaning on the
counter and standing still. In the first place I judged him to be drunk
because he was staggering about.
Until you moved him from the counter you could not judge from his walk
or Gait that he was drunk.
No sir, because he didn't move.
It was only from his indistinct voice, the redness of his face, and the
peculiar twirl of his moustache (laughter) that you judged him of being
drunk?
It was not a twirl.
How does he generally use his moustache?
Generally and a smooth manner.
Would a stranger, who had not seen him for 12 months or so, be able to
judge by the curl or position of his mustache?
I think it would go a good way towards it.
Re-examined by Mr. Hubbard:- Supposing you had been on the other side of
the counter, and had not seen him come in staggering, but had seen him
leaning over there, would you have been able to judge that man was
drunk?
Yes, sir, certainly.
P.C. Graham said:- I have been 9 years in the force. On Wednesday last I
was coming down King Street about 4 o'clock. At the request of P.C.
Sandom I accompanied him into the "Cinque Ports Arms." There I saw
Golden leaning on the bar drinking. After he had finished drinking I
walked round and picked up his glass and smelt it. Miss Holyer said, "He
has had whiskey." I had not seeing Golden before I saw him in the bar,
and therefore not seen him walk or gate. I formed the opinion that he
was drunk, and I judged that by his appearance. Sandom said. "What is
your name?" and he reeled round and staggered across to the seat by the
bar and sat down. His face was very red and he could hardly speak. I
assisted Golden home afterwards, and I almost had to carry him.
The Chairman:- Was anybody else in the bar beside him?
Witness. No sir. Mr. Holyer's son came into the bar.
Cross-examined by Mr. Emery:- I was at the bottom of Abbot's Hill, in
King Street, when Sandom beckoned me. I had not noticed the man before.
I have no instructions to prevent a drunken entering a house but if I
saw one go in I should follow him. I have seen the man to-day in Court.
Is he sober?
Yes, I should say he is sober, but he is not so drunk today as he was
the other day (loud laughter.)
Cross-examination continued:- His face is not so red today as it was the
other day. I don't think I could judge a man being drunk by his
moustache.
Mr. Emery:- Could you or anyone else judge a man being drunk by the
curling of his moustache?
Witness:- What do you mean, by the curling?
The position of his moustache?
Mr. Emery. Yes.
Witness:- No. sir.
There was nothing to strike you as being peculiar about it?
No.
Mr. Hubbard thought they could eliminate all reference to the
moustache.
Dr. T. J. Styan was next called and said:- I was called to the police
station on Wednesday last at 4:10. I saw a man there by the name of
Golden. In my opinion he was drunk. He was flushed in his face, thick in
his speech, unable to walk properly, and reeled up against the wall of
the police court. I heard Mr. Ross asked him how he was and he said "I
am drunk."
The Chairman:- In short Dr. Stein, do you say he was unmistakably drunk,
to the observation of any ordinary observer?
Witness:- Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Emery:- I examined him to see whether he was drunk
or not. I had a full opportunity of testing him.
Supposing you had casually passed him, when standing still leaning upon
a counter the height of his elbow, and he did not move, and he only
asked for "two of whiskey," in two or three words, and you didn't know
the man from his ordinary appearance, would you then on being asked
whether he was drunk or not, consider it a matter of time to jump to the
conclusion that he was drunk?
I should have very strongly suspected it.
That is to say if you had had this small opportunity of noticing him
would you then be prepared to say he was drunk?
The man's appearance of being drunk was in his face.
Further cross-examined, Dr. Styan said he had seen the man that morning
had his face was slightly flushed.
The only thing from which you would judge his that his face was flushed
when you saw him in the position?
If I heard him speak I should have known.
If you only heard him speak these words "two of whiskey?"
It depends upon how he asked for it.
If you ask for it steadily as he usually spoke, and poured out the water
to it properly, and did not move from his position, would it not be very
difficult to tell whether the man was not sober?
I can't answer to that. It is purely a suppositious case.
Under these conditions you would not pledge yourself to say whether he
was drunk or sober?
It is quite enough to form a strong suspicion on.
But not enough for you to come and give evidence?
It might be in some cases.
Do you believe he could have pulled himself up in front of the counter
to make believe he was sober?
He could not when I saw him at 4:10.
Thomas Wilkes said:- I am landlord of the "Stag's Head Inn," close to
the Market-place.
On Wednesday afternoon last Golden came into the bar with another man.
It was between 3 and 4 o'clock as near as I can say. I didn't see them
come in, but I saw Golden come in and close the door. He slipped and I
thought it was the met, but he slipped again and I concluded he was drunk.
The other man ask for two penny worth of whiskey and I ask who it was
for. I said, "You can have it," but I refused to serve Golden, who sat
down for 2 or 3 minutes. His voice was all right. I refused to serve him
again and he went over 2 or 3 minutes afterwards.
Cross-examined by Mr. Emery:- I did not notice his face. My bar is
rather dark. I know the man is flushed as a rule.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Emery then addressed the Court for the defence. In his humble
opinion, he said, there was no case made out whatever for the
prosecution to come within the law. He was very sorry to see introduced
an appeal to their Worship's for a conviction with the only desire that
the Licensed Victuallers should endeavour to conduct their houses to
prevent drunkenness. Speaking on behalf of the whole of the Licensed
Victuallers of the Isle of Thanet, he could say there was no body of
men, individually and collectively, the more sincerely desired to
prevent drunkenness than they did. They had not to decide the case
according to any desire to prevent an occurrence of drunkenness, but
according to the law as laid down. There were three issues. The first
was the liability of a master for the acts of his servants. In this
particular case it was not a master who was charged himself with
permitting drunkenness upon his premises, but it was a man with a person
in his employ, who, without his knowledge, permitted drunkenness upon
his premises. The magistrates had to decide, if the charge was correct,
how far the defendant could be held liable for the acts of his servant.
He submitted that from the decision of the case, "Somerset v. Hart,"
which was a very strong case, where the potman was serving in the bar,
that it was laid down that the Act must be read, so far as this
particular charge was concerned, as if the words "knowingly" was
inserted, and as if he "knowingly permitted drunkenness up on licensed
premises." In the case quoted, the potman allowed gambling to go on, and
it was done openly in his presence, and it was held that he was acting
beyond the scope of his authority, and that this wilful act of his
could not bind the landlord, and so conviction can follow against the
landlord for knowingly permitting gambling upon the premises." Mr. Emery
pointed out that the defendant had given instructions, as stated by the
evidence for the prosecution, to prevent drunkenness upon his premises,
and he submitted that there had been no convivance by defendant at the
disobedience of those instructions. His second point was that before
they could find a person guilty, I have first to prove guilty knowledge,
and in support of his contention he quoted the case of "Somerset v.
Wade," which, he said, was on all fours with the present case. He
further urged that it was immaterial evidence about the man being drunk,
but what evidence had they that the person in charge of the bar knew he
was drunk? He would call evidence to prove that the girl was not in the
bar when the man entered. Mr. Emery ridiculed the statements about the
redness of the man's face and the way he carried his moustache,
characterizing the letter as a simple absurdity which with which he
would not trouble the Bench. The case narrowed down to this point, that
a medical man, if he had had the same opportunities as his client, of
judging, would have had a strong suspicion that the man was drunk.
The Chairman said he thought he must stop Mr. Emery on that point,
because he thought Dr. Styan was very distinct indeed. He did not think
Mr. Emery should try to turn his words. He (the Chairman) asked Dr.
Styan a very definite question.
Mr. Emery admitted this, but said he did not wish to argue with the
Bench. He urged, however, that it was not until he cross-examined Dr.
Styan that he got at the circumstances of his opportunity of judging the
man's condition. In conclusion, he pointed out that his client had
carried on business at the same house for 34 years without the slightest
complaint, and his father-in-law held the house before him from 1844.
The whole of the family were engaged in the Licensed Victuallers' trade,
and they were all holding honourable position in this town.
Mr. Hubbard, replying on the legal points of case, said in one of the
cases referred to by Mr. Emery, on the question of principal and agent,
it was held that where an offence was committed by the agent the
principal was responsible. The legal defence put forward was that
defendant did not connive at this offence. If they've read through the
numerous cases they were very confusing, but he thought he would be able
to tell them of a case decided in 1888, "Bond v. Evans."
Mr. Emery:- That case was overruled by "Somerset v. Wade," in 1894.
Mr. Hubbard said the case in question was heard in the Queen's Bench
Division. It was not competent for a jury of any court of equal rank to
be overruled by any case given by its predecessors. They could
distinguish cases, but could not overall its decision. If there was an
appeal, the Court of appeal could overall a decision of a Court of lower
rank. He contended that Mr. Emery could not produce a case in the Court
of appeal which overruled the case he was about to submit to the Bench.
Mr. Hubbard read a long extract from the judgement of the case of "Bond
v. Evans," and urged that though there might have been cases to a
certain extent to contradict it, yet they did not alter it, and it was
as good law. He submitted that the case covered that before the Bench,
and that, according to this, although the landlord might have had no
knowledge, it was his duty to employ persons who would not break the
law.
Evidence was then called for the defence. The first witness was the
defendant, who said:- I have held a licence 34 years and have never had
a charge or caution for any disorderly conduct in my house (Applause,
which was suppressed.) Mine is a working-class house used by the working
classes in King Street. I always take extreme precautions to avoid
drunkenness on the premises. I have frequently refused to serve persons.
I refused two on the same day, and on the following Friday I refused two
fishermen. It is almost a daily occurrence that I refuse people. My
daughter and son assist me in the bar, and I have always told them to
refuse persons about whom they had any doubt. She calls me sometimes and
I have told her to call me when she did not like to refuse anybody. On
the day in question I was in the back parlour, about 4 o'clock. I had no
knowledge of what occurred until P.C. Sandham came in shortly
afterwards. I have not only given instructions, but have always, to the
best of my ability, endeavoured to see them carried out. I have never
connived at any disobedience to my instructions.
Mr. Hubbard said he had no questions to ask the defendant. he contended
that it was simply a case of negligence within the purview of the
statute.
Mr. Emery asked for a note of Mr. Hubbard's observations to be placed
upon the depositions.
Clara Holyer, daughter of defendant, said:- On April 15th, Mr. Holyer
was in the back room. No one was in the bar. I was in the kitchen making
the fire up. I heard someone enter the bar, and I waited till I had
finished making the fire up and then went I went to the bar. I then saw
the man standing against the counter. He ordered "two of whiskey." I
thought he was sober, and I served him with the whiskey. He watered it
himself. His hand appeared to be steady. I don't know the man. To the
best of my recollection he has not been in the bar since last summer. I
knew him by sight, but not his name. He remained standing at the bar. A
policeman came in, but up to that time I had not seen the man standing
in any other position. The policeman asked the man his name and he said
"Jones." Whilst there my brother came into the bar and the man passed
the time of day to him, and my brother nodded in reply as he passed.
Until I saw the man move from the counter I did not notice anything that
would lead me to suppose he was drunk. I had received instructions from
my father in the conduct of the bar that if anyone came in the worst
would drink I was to refuse them. I have carried out those instructions.
When there was any doubt my father told me to call him. In this
particular case I had no doubt. I noticed the man's speech and he
appeared to speak distinctly.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hubbard:- You served him immediately?
I served him.
Did you look carefully at Golden before you served him?
Yes.
How long do you think he had been standing at the bar before you saw
him?
About a minute.
How long after you came into the bar was it before you served him with
the whiskey?
Only a few seconds.
In these few seconds you looked carefully at the man and perceived that
he was sober? Is that so?
Yes, sir.
Further cross-examined, witness said she knew it was her duty to
ascertain whether a person at the bar was drunk or not.
John Holyer, son of the defendant, said:- I reside at the "Cinque Ports
Arms," and was there on the 15th April. I went through the bar that
afternoon about 4 o'clock. My sister was there and there was a man on
the other side. My attentions were not called to him but he said to me,
"Good afternoon." I nodded in reply. I have seen him once or twice
before. He was standing with his left arm on the counter. He had some
whiskey and as I came through he picked up the water jug and watered it.
In my judgement he was sober. His hands were steady, and his speech was
clear. His face was not more flushed than usual.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hubbard:- I did not see Golden before the whisky
was served.
This was the case, and the Bench retired to deliberate. On returning
into Court, after a few moments absence, the Chairman said:- In this
case the Bench have come to the determination to reserve their decision
till this day week.
The Court then rose, the case having occupied nearly two hours and a
half.
|
) King Street
