Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS "
CONTESTED. .
INTERESTING OASE AT KINGSTON
SUCCESSFUL DEFENCE.
At the Kingston Police Court yester-
day, before Mr. Crosby Gilmore (Police
Magistrat«), Inspector Hutton proso
. cuting,
Percy Worsley, Margate, was obarged
with being drunk and disorderly in the
Margate-hall on Juno 11. Mr. A. G.
Ogilvie- appeared for the defendant,
who pleaded not guilty
Constable Marshall staled that at
10.56 p.m. cm .Trane 11 he was on duty
in Margate-hall, and saw a disturbance
taking place behind the piano. He
found the defendant in an ante-room,
sitting on the floor. The room was full
of men, and the defendant was very
excited and under the influence of
drink.
Mr. Ogilvie objected to the witness
expressing snch an opinion, as only a
medical man, be said, lould say
whether a man waa drunk or not. Wit-
ness could not say that the defendant
waa "apparently" drunk or that "in
his opinion" he was drunk. Only a doc-
tor at the timo of aiTost could give
such evidence. A judge in England,
in a similar case, had held that the
constable had no moans of knowledge.
Witness added that he lifted the de-
fendant to his feet, and noticed that
he smelt strongly of liquor.
Mr. Ogilvie objected to tile witness
3dding what caused the defendant's
excitement, and said that all he could
do was to state the facts as they oc-
curred.
Witness said that ho could not get a
i satisfactory answer from the defendant
as to what the disturbance was about,
and be asked everyone to leave the
room, whieli they did, leaving only the
I defendant and a man named Rollins
with him. The defendant was not bo
having in his usual manner. FTe again
asked the defendant what the trouble
was, and ho replied, "I wanted the lid
of the piano closed, and if they do not
do that I will close the hall alto-
gether." He (witness) said "I would
advise yon not to do that ah you ¡ire
drunk." The defendant told "him to
get out of the way, and said thai ho
would do what fto liked. When ho told
the defendant he was drunk he said he
was not. He told the defendant that
if he persist«! in his intention it would
| be necessary to arrest him. A friend
of defendant's then carno into the
room and assisted him »way. A quar-
ter of an hour later he saw the defend-
ant outside the hall, and noticed that
he was a good bit quieter.
To Mr. Ogilvie: Ho did not hear
that Rollins also had fallen down. He
was not aware that the defendant was
secretary of the Margate-hall commit-
tee, and he was not awaro nntil after-
wards that he had any control over the
hall. Had he (witness) been in charge
of the hall with instructions to keep
the piano lid closed because of the
dust caused by dancing, ho. would have
been excited had anyone insisted on
having the lid open. He was not
aware that there had been any trouble
siDce between defendant and Rollins,
or that the hall committee had met and
decided that Rollins (.hould be abked
to apologise to the defendant. The de-
fendant waa a man of standing, and
such a charge was humiliating to him.
Mr. Ogilvio submitted that there
was no case for him to answer, as there
was no evidence that the defendant
had been either drunk or disorderly.
Tile defendant had a right to sit on the
floor if he was foolish enough to do so.
He was acting on the resolution of the
committee in keeping the piano lid clos-
ed, and the constablo took np the as-
tounding position that if he persisted in
his attitude he would arrest him. The
only evidence was that the defendant
waa excited, but the constable added
that a quarter of an hour later he wa»
"very much quieter." There was a
big distinction between being drunk
and being the worse for drink. Mr.
Ogilvio quoted an appeal case, Trebeck
v. Croudac (the King's Bench, 1918), in
which Lord Justice Bankes, dealing
with the powers of the police to arrest
a m»n for lieing drank without a war-
rant, said that "the man who made the
arrest had no knowledge and no means
of knowledge that the dofendant. was
¿rank." Tile question of drunkenness
should be fought out between the
pouce surgeon and the defendant's pri,
rate doctor if he chose to send for one
when arrested. The constable had the
right of arrest if he had reasonable
catise to believe that the defendant was
drunk, but that was different from con
rioting him of being drunk, which
could only bo proved by the police sur-
geon. In Tasmania, if a man was ar-
rested for being drunk, there could, be
no evidence against him except medical
evidence.
The Police Magistrate, in dismissing
the case, said that they had had an in-
teresting discussion which would be of
great use in the future. Knowing that
the case was to bo defended, he had
tried to find a definition of the word
"drunk," birt the dictionaries were not
very helpful. He thought a fair de-
finition would be "where a person was
either mentally or physically incapaci-
tated so as not to be in a normal con-
dition from excessive iudulgence in al-
coholic liquor." The defendant was
charged with being disorderly, as well
as drunk, and hoth offences had to be
proved. Even assuming that the de-
fendant was drunk lie was not satisfied
that he was disorderly,, and on that
point alone he was entitled to a dis-
missal. As to the defendant being
drunk, he had considerable doubt. The
defendant was in charge of the hall,
and desired the piano lid to be kept
closed because of the dubt, and ho was
within his rights in insisting on that
according to his instructions. Appar-
ently, the defendant was pulled on to
the floor, and when questioned by the
constable said that if the lid of the
piano wa' not shut he would shut the
hall, which showed that his mental
faculties weie clear. He could not de- j
cide on the evidence that the defend- <
ant was drunk, and there was certain-
ly no evidence that he was disorderly,
and therefore the oase must be dis-
missed. The question as to when a
man was drunk was a most intercîting
one. and it was not enough to say, as
a Victorian judgt. had said, "that a
man is drunk'when he is not sober," as
that did not carry them much furthct.
$