Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

Who would be a Publican?

News
Cite
Share

Who would be a Publican? RHYL HOTEL KEEPER^FINED FOR PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS. SOLICITOR AND THE POLICE. PIETY-EARNINC CRITICS. Who would he a publican these days P This was the striking manner in which Mr Jos. Lloyd opened the case for the defence in a licensing prosecution at Rhyl Police Court on Tuesday, before Messrs S. Perks (chairman) and W Elwy Williams. In the first instance William Roberts, farm labourer. CRosehill Terrace. Mill Bank, was summoned by P.S. Roberts for drunken- ness at the Dudley Arms Hotel on the instant. P.S. Roberts stated that at about 10-15 p.m on the date in question he visited the Dud- ley Arms Hotel, accompanied by P.C. Rogers, and found defendant very drunk, with a glass half full of ale in front of him. Defendant admitted the offence, and as this was the first case against him he was let off with a fine of 2s 6d and 6s costs. Following this case, Henry Kunz, licensee of the Dudley Arms, was summoned for selling to a drunken person and for per- mitting drunkenness at the hotel. Mr J Roberts Jones appeared for the prosecution, as in the foregoing case, and Mr Joseph Lloyd defended. In the course of an argument as to which charge should be proceeded with first Mr Lloyd said there might be two charges, but there could only be one offence, for which a man could not be convicted twice. How- ever, he did not mind which charge was dealt with. Mr J Roberts-Jones decided to go on with the case of permitting drunkenness. The facts of the case were that P.S. Roberts and P.C. Rogers visited the Dudley Arms at about 10-15 p.m. on Thursday, March 15th. There they found the defendant Roberts very drunk, leaning against the counter with a glass half full of beer in his hand. The barman was behind the counter, and a man named John Ball and another man named Eli Williams were sitting near the fire, each with a glass of beer. The barman denied that Roberts had been served, but Roberts himself would tell the Bench that he was served and that he paid for the beer. When Mr Kunz appeared on the scene the sergeant called his attention to Roberts' con- dition, and he at once took the glass out of his hand and ordered him out of the premises. The drunken condition of Roberts was so apparent that he had been refused drink at two public houses in the town immediately before he went to the Dudley Arms. According to Supt Jones' last annual report 132 persons were con- victed for drunkenness in Rhyl, but not one publican was convicted. There was great difficulty in bringing matters of this kind home to publicans, and it was of very great importance to the town that when they could be proved a conviction should b: recorded. P.S. Roberts, in bearing out Mr Jones' case, said that when he asked the barman who served Roberts, he replied that he had not served him and that the glass in his possession was Eli Williams'. Roberts thereupon said Xo, it is my glass the barman served me and I paid for it." Cross-examined It was after they left the Dudley Arms that P.C. Lewis told witness that Roberts was turned out of the White Liou. It was quite "off chance" that he went to the Dudley Arms. He had not the slightest idea that a drunken man had gone in the direction of the Dudley Arms. Ball did not claim the glass which Roberts was holding as his. Ball and Williams had a glass each. P.C. Rogers, besides corroborating this evidence, said they refused to serve Roberts at the Albion because he was drunk. Cross-examined There was no necessity to lock Roberts up after he left the Albion, as be was very quiet. Witness advised him to go home, aud he cleared off into Kicmel Street. On their way to the Dudley Arms witness and the Sergeant visited the Wynn- stay and the Imperial. P.C. Geo Lewis deposed seeing Roberts enter the White Lion, from which place he was turned away because he was drunk. The defendant Roberts admitted he was drunk when he visited the Dudley, and said that notwithstanding his condition the bar- man served him with beer, for which he paid. Cross-examined Witness remembered having a conversation with two policemen before he visited the. Dudley, but he was too drunk to know who they were (laughter). He had a pint at the Dudley the next morn- ing, when he still maintained to Mr Kunz that the barman served him on the night in question. The Duty of the Polioo to Publioans. Mr Joseph Lloyd, in addressing the court on behalf of the defendant, asked,who would be a publican these days ? bven barristers were asked not to defend him. Even trades- men were asked not to deal with him. Even some members of the police force treated him as though he belonged to a section of society that ought to be harassed rather than pro- tected. He thought this case showed that policemen-he would not say all policemen, but certain members of the force—were not giving licensed victuallers the protection which they as a body of men were entitled to give to licensed victuallers. They found that the defendant Roberts, who was un- doubtedly very drunk, was met by two policemen before he visited the Dudley. Both policemen thought they had done their duty by asking the man to go home. He (Mr Lloyd) maintained that they owed something more than that to the publicans of the town. It was their duty to either see a drunken man home or lock him up, because every public house he passed on his way home was jeopardised, as well as the live- lihood of the man who held the licence. A publican had not the same oppoitunity of seeing whether a man was drunk or sober as outsiders had. and on that account he might unwittingly commit an offence against the licensing laws. Even if a drunken man was turned away from a public house without being served, the publican had to suffer the indignity of coming to court to explain how the drunken man got on his premises at all. The evidence for the defence in this case was that the defendant Roberts entered the Dudley drunk. They made no attempt to deny that. But if he was as drunk as had been made out, his evidence that day was not worth anything. They must therefore either give up his evidence or his drunkenness, and he asked the Bench to give up his evidence. At the moment of Roberts' entrance Mr Kunz was upstairs, and the barman, who was engaged in seeing to the wants of customers in the the smoke room, refused to serve him and went on with his duties. Not only did the barman not serve Roberts, but hei had no opportunity of doing so, for immediately he returned from the smokeroom he found the policeman in the bar. It was admitted that Roberts had a glass of beer in his hand at that moment, but besides the barman denying that he had served the man, Ball claimed the glass as his. The sight of a glass of beer standing handy had proved a temptation not only to a drunken man but to a sober man many a time before that day. Ball would tell their worships that he afterwards finished off the glass of beer which Roberts took up. When Roberts called at the Dudley the next morning, Mr Kunz asked him to tell him the truth about the matter, and he informed Mr Kunz that he was not served by the barman. After the service of the summons, however, he turned round again and accused the bar- man of serving him, saying he was not going to tell a lie for anybody. Conclud- ing, Mr Lloyd said it required great moral courage to be a publican, and greater moral courage on the part of magis- trates to do a publican justice. There were always people who could earn some sort of piety by criticising or comm nding the actions of magistrates. But he asked their worships to judge this case on the evidence as they heard it, and though they might not earn the approval of those modern familiars of the inquisition, they would earn the appro- val of their own consciences. Mr Kunz, in the course of his evidence, aiid he had been in the trade eleven years, and this was the first time any charge had been made against him. He further stated that when he asked Roberts the following morning to give him a true account of the matter Roberts said The barman did not serve me, but seeing the glass I thought I might as well have it, as I knew I would not get any when the police came in." William Jones, barman at the Dudley, said lie was positive he refused to serve Roberts. Two of the three glasses in use in the bar at the time he entered belonged to Ball, the one on the mantelpiece being aUbut empty, and theone on the counter, which was seized by Roberts, newly filled. John Ball, gardener at the Botanical Gardens, swore that the barman did not serve Roberts. In cross-examining witness Mr Roberts- Jones demanded an explanation as to how he came to have two glasses. Witness said he had all but emptied the first glass, and as he was not near enough to the counter to put it down to be refilled the barman filled another glass for him. Mr Robert Jones-But why didn't you fin- ish off the little remaining in the first glass ? Witness-You don't want me to swallow the glass do you ? (Loud laughter). Mr Lloyd-Mr Roberts Jones does not understand these things, so we have to explain to him how beer is drunk (more laughter). Witness, further cross-examined, said Roberts had simply taken hold of the glass on the counter when the police came in-he did not drink any of its contents. The Bench decided to convict, and were considering what costs, including a fee for Roberts, they should allow, when Mr Lloyd observed that it was a monstrous shame to allow a drunken fellow anyth ng after he had been the cause of the whole bother. Supt Robert Jones pointed out that the man had been subpoenaed to give evidence in this case, otherwise he would have been at liberty to leave the court as soon as his own case was heard. Mr Roberts-Jones-He is a decent fellow. Mr Lloyd—Well, if he is a friend of yours I wont say anything further. Kunz was fined Y,2, and £1 17s 6d costs, including 2s 6d for Roberts. The charge of selling drink to a drunken person was thereupon withdrawn.

The Women's Emigration Association.

Advertising

- Dyserth.

HINTS FOR THE HOME.

Advertising