The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

Charge Against a St. Asaph Publican. Alleged "Sale" to a Drunken Man. The Definition of Drunkenness. Interesting Proposition by an Advocate. THE St. A sap-1 magistrates, on Monday, were Occupied some considerable time in dealing with a charge of selling to a drunken man, pre- ferred against Mr James Towers, the licensee of the Kinmel Arms Hotel, Higfn-street, St. Asaph, which was alleged to have taken place on Saturday, the 22nd ult. Mr F. J. Gamlin (Rhyl) prosecuted, on be- half of the police, and Mr Joseph Lloyd de- fended. Mr Gamlin said there was a second charge of Permitting drunkenness, but as the sale of drink Was admitted, his friend asked that the charge of selling should be taken first, as he denied the ,ln&n was' drunk. Mr Lloyd We admit the sale, but deny the trlan was drunk. Mr Gamlin was proceeding to open the case, when Mr Lloyd interposed, and said he had been instructed to object to Dr. Davies taking part In the case, as he understood the condition of the man was brought to his notice the same day. Personally, he had no objection; he was simply obeying his instructions. Mr Gamlin said he hoped that Dr. Davies, if he didn't take part in the case, would not leave the court, as he would call him as a witness. (Laughter.) Mr Gamlin, proceeding,, said about twenty Minutes to twelve on the morning of the 22nd •November, P.S. Langdon, who was in company With P.C. Parry, observed a man named Tohn Evans staggering down High-street. His con- dition was so pronounced that they went after him, and saw him go into the Kinmel Arms Hotel. Both officers followed the man as Quickly as possible, but when they got into the hotel, they found he had been, served, and had drunk half the beer. A nephew of the defend- ant was in the bar, and when Langdon asked him 'why he bad served a drunken man, the replied "Well, he's quiet." The boy then called his uncle, who, in answer to the sergeant, said "I did not notice the state he. in, or else I would not have served him." (,the advocate) did not insinuate that Evans was in a beastly state of intoxication, but he as not able to 'speak coherently. He imme7 diately went out of the house, and on going oVer the river bridge he met Mr J. P. Jones, yhotn. tney had subpoened as a witness, and he would tell them me state in which Evans Was in. He was also seen by Dr. Davies, Wl].ose attention was called by the, sergeant to the man's condition. The Sergeant's Versicn. Z, P. S. Langdon said he and P.C. Parry ob- served defendant staggering down High-street, f^e disappeared in the Kinmel Arms. Witness followed him, and found him with a glass of P^er in front of him. Ernest Jones, the de- fendant's nephew, was behind the bar, but fitness did not know who served tihe beer. Witness said: "How came you to serve this ^ian when he is drunk?" The barman said, 'He's quiet," and then called his uncle, the defendant, in the bar. Witness spoke to him about it, ,and defendant said: "I'm sorry; he Would not have been served if I had noticed hini," John Evans denied beinlg drunk, and Said he would go out. He then went in the direction of the river bridge, and witness "itched him going home. The man smelt strongly of drink. Cross-examined by Mr Lloyd: Witness was 111 E. P. Jones' shop when he saw the defend- ^■t going up the street. He went into a, utcher's shop, and then afterwards to Mrs Justin's. Witness didn't notice whether he had any parcels under this arm.. Defendant Went from Mrs Austin's to the Kinmel Arms, and they followed him as quickly as .they could. ^*hen they got there the man had nearly drunk is beer. Witness was not aware ^at Evans, When sober, was unsteady in his gait and of all excitable temperament. He said: "If I <l.Tl1 drunk summons me." Any drunken man Would say that. He could not say what a sober man would say, because he had never J^atened a sober man with a summons. ro> Chairman: I have seen him in various Phases, and known him for many years. Would you like me to igive evidence? (Laugh- er.) Mr Lloyd: No, sir; I prefer you to be on the e £ ch. We shall get fairness from you. C. Parry, who was with the last witness, he had no doubt the man was drunk. He as not disorderly. Mr J. p. Jones, grocer, Liverpool House, St. SaPh, said on the morning in question he Passed John Evans on the top of the bridge. afterwards met Sergeant Langdon, with ^orn he had a conversation. Coition of Drunkenness. Mr Gamlin Was the man drunk or sober? Witness I don't know what your definition drunkenness is. Gamilin Well, I am. not giving evidence, doesn't matter. .NVitness I don't know what the court's defi- <'lltion of drunkenness is. 1'he Clerk Leave that to the court. Witness: Well, my own opinion is that I ^n°t say the man was drunk. r ^*am^n Would you like to say he was j fitness: He was to some extent under the uence of drink. Chairman Was he sober? Itness If you will define to me —— he Chairman, (testily) Answer the ques- Joi?' Y?ou are sober yourself. Was ha like fitness: No, sir, he was not. r Easterby: Was he like he is now? Witntsg- There was some difference. >a r Lloyd (in cross-examination) He under the influence of drink in your opin- V-To some extent. 011 a!greed wit'h most scientific people 8o a man i9 under the influence of drink a9 y0u ^as h« has had soma liquor? Doctors say, kilo- that a man is under the influence of y after his first glass?—Yes. read it yourself?—Yea, I hare. After 'that, it is merely a question of degree? es. I cannot put it to you from your own experi- ence, Mr Jones,, and, therefore, I won't ask you anything further. (Laughter.) Mr Gamlin In fairness to the police, I think I ought to ask Dr Davies to give evidence in this case. My friend objected to him sitting, so he may throw some light upon it. I don't care which way it goes. Dr Davies then stepped from the Bench into the witness-box, and was sworn. Examined by Mr Gamlin, be said that previous to having a conversation with Ser'geant Langdon, he had noticed Evans. In his opinion, the man was drunk. 'Mr Joseph Lloyd: Then drunkenness is a matter of opinion? Witness Well, it is a matter of fact, but there is an opinion upon that fact. Is it conceivable, that persons equally con- scientious as yourself might come to the con- clusion that he was not drunk ■—Yes. How far were you from him ? I passed close to him. Sergeant Langdon spoke to me about him, and I turned round to look at him again. I should be 150 feet from him.. Then .Sergeant Langdon must have been in doubt 'about his condition when he asked you? -—I don't know. My idea was that he wanted to summons me as a witness. Mr Jos. Lloyd, in his address for the defence, said there was one question often asked, which he had never yet heard answered satisfactorily. The question was, "What is the correct defini- tion of drunkenness?" and tine reason why it was hard to define was because the definition changed according to the manners and habits of the age in which they lived. They knew from literature that, 20 years ago, a man was not thought to be drunk until, as one writer put it, "knowing he had a home, he knew not how to get thither." (Laughter.) They had certainly improved on that kind of thing, in these days, and now they took a much stricter view of the question. The Rubicon Narrowed. The times did not allow a man so much lib- erty and licence to take alcohol without treat- ing him as a drunken man. The rubico-n over which he must pass had been very properly narrowed down, but for all that, they had not ar-L-ived at that age when they would agree with scientists that a man was under the influence of drink immediately after he consumed one glass of liquor. He would have put it to the doctor whether it was not merely a question of degree as to how much influence the law allowed alcohol to have over a man. The law said that beyond a certain point they could not go, and it was that va'gue point which consti- tuted the line that divided drunkenness from sobriety. There was a question which the learned chairman asked the witness in the box, and which he often put as if conclusive, "Do you say the man was sober?" Logicians told them that the contrary to drunk was, not sober, but not drunk. To put it down in logical sequence, "A" is drunk, and the. direct con- trary is not sobriety, bnt not drunk." The learned doctor on the Bench (Dr Easterby) taught him that in school, and he (tlhe advo- cate) hoped that the doctor would give a similar lesson to Major Birch. (Laughter.) The point, he respectfully submitted, was not whether the man was sober, but, was he drunk. The Act of Parliament did not say that a man must be sober, but that he must not be druník when he was served. The evidence of Mr Jones and Dr Davies was clearly not con- clusive, because the latter witness admitted there were many persons as conscientious as himself who might come to the conclusion that the man was not drunk. No doubt, Dr Davies' standard was a high one, but it was not exactly the conclusion the law came to. With regard to the conversation between Sergeant Langdon and the defendant in the house, there was a conflict of evidence. Defendant did not say, "I would not have served him if I had seen him, because the boy served him; but what he said was, "If Áe was drunk, he would not have been served," which was a very different thing. The defendant had been in the trade for 12 years, without a stain on his character, and when he went from the Bryndinas Hotel to the Kinme-l Arms, and the police were asked as to his character, the sergeant then said-and it would be within the recollection of the Bench —that if all public-houses were looked after by men such as Mr 'lowers, there would be very little work for the police. Evidence for the Defence. Ernest Jones, nephew to the defendant, said Evans asked for a glass of beer. His manner was quiet and civil, and there was nothing at all to indicate that he was drunk. He had nearly drunk all his beer when Sergeant Lang- don came in three minutes afterwards. The officer said Evans was drunk, but he denied it, and witness said the man was very quiet. Evans was naturally lame, and witness was prepared to swear that he was not drunk. Cross-examined by Mr Gamlin If a stranger had seen Evans he would have thought he was drunk. When the sergeant told his uncle he was drunk, he said, "If he had been drunk, he would not have been served." John Evans, The Row, St Asaph, said he had never previously been before the magis- trates in his life. On the day in question his wife was ill in bed, and he had been making several purchases. Before he got to the town, he had two "three's" of rum at the Coach and Horses. After he had called at Jones's, the butchers., and Mr Evans, the newsagent, he went into the Kinmel Arms for a glass of beer. The sergeant came in, and said he was drunk. As a matter of fact, he was absolutely sober. Cross-examined by Mr Gamlin: Evans said he saw the sergeant and the constable, and they were following him like dogs. (Laughter.) Mr James Towers, the detfetndant, said he contradicted the sergeant when he said Evans was drunk. If he had been, would not have been served. He walked out of the bar quite straight, with the exception of a certain limp. Cross-examined Evans went out of the bar straight, and without wobblinfg. At the conclusion of the case, the Chair- man said the Bench had considered the evi- dence very carefully. It was not quite right that defendant should keep a boy in the bar, who was perhaps not able- to discriminate be- tween a drunken and a sober man. They took into consideration the defendant's excellent character, and they would give him the benefit of the doubt which hung over the case, and dismiss the charge. Mr Gamlin said, under the circumstances, he would not proceed with the other case.