Attorney General v Carroll

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 July 1932
• Date: 27 July 1932
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Attorney-General v. Carroll.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL at the suit of SUPERINTENDENT MacNEILL OF THE CIVIC GUARD

Complainant

and

JAMES CARROLL

Defendant.

Licensing Acts - Offence - Prohibited hours - Lodger resident in licensed premises - Purchase of intoxicating liquor by lodger during permitted hours - Consumption of liquor by guests of lodger during prohibited hours - Duty of publican - "Permitting" consumption on the premises - Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927 (No 15 of 1927), sect. 2, sub-sect. 1 (d).

Sect. 2, sub-sect. 1, of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927 (No. 15 of 1927), provides:—

"Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any country borough . . . to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises —

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(d) at any time on . . . St, Patrick's Day."

Defendant, a licensed publican, let portion of the upper storey of his licensed premises to two lodgers. The lodgers had the right to use, in common with the defendant and his family, a sitting-room on the first floor. The whole of the premises were licensed. On the 16th March, 1931, C., one of the lodgers, purchased from the defendant some bottles of stout which he placed in his bedroom in the upper storey of the said premises. On the next day (St. Patrick's Day) C. invited two guests to visit him and be entertained by him, and between 7 and 8 o'clock that evening these two guests came to the licensed premises and were shown up to the said sitting-room, C. was already in the sitting-room, as also was the other lodger,

when C.'s two guests arrived. Some time later the defendant and his wife and some other people came into the room, and all remained for some time conversing. C. brought down from his bedroom some of the bottles of stout purchased the previous day, and supplied some of the stout to his two guests. No other person consumed any of the stout. The defendant was aware that the stout was so supplied by C.

The defendant was charged with permitting the consumption of intoxicating liquor on his licensed premises during prohibited hours. The District Justice dismissed the summons on the merits, but stated a case for the opinion of the High Court.

Held that the defendant ought to have been convicted, as he permitted the consumption of the stout by C.'s guests, being aware of all the circumstances under which the consumption took place, and allowed it to go on without any protest on his part.

A publican "permits" the consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises if he does not take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Owing to the changes in the law effected by the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927 (No 15 of 1927), the cases, Pine v. Barnes,20 Q.B.D. 221, and Cope v.Landles, 13 T.L.R. 18, are not now good law in the Irish Free State,

Case Stated by District Justice Sullivan, sitting at the District Court for the County Borough of Cork.

The facts were set out in the case stated as follows:—

"1. The defendant is a duly licensed publican carrying on the business of licensed publican at the premises No. 22 George's Quay, in the City of Cork.

2. The entire of the said premises No. 22 George's Quay is licensed.

3. A portion of the upper storey of the said premises is let by the defendant to lodgers, and two lodgers—named respectively, John Colbert and Joseph Carroll—resided in the upper storey of the said premises. By arrangement with the defendant all the lodgers have the right to use, in common with the defendant and his family, a sitting-room situate on the first floor in the said premises.

4. On the 16th day of March, 1931, the said John Colbert lawfully purchased from the defendant intoxicating liquor, viz.: half a dozen bottles of stout, which he placed in his bedroom in the upper storey of the said premises.

5. On the 17th day of March, 1931 (St. Patrick's Day), John Colbert invited two guests named respectively, Jeremiah Connolly, of 7 Prosperity Square, Cork, and James Wade, of 52a Evergreen Street, Cork, to visit him, and to be entertained by him. The invitation so given was a genuine and bona fide invitation, and was understood, and accepted, as such, by both Jeremiah Connolly and James Wade.

6. Between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock p.m. on the same day, in pursuance of the said invitation, Jeremiah Connolly and James Wade came to the said licensed premises and were shown up to the sitting-room already referred to, where were John Colbert and Joseph Carroll. Some time later the defendant and his wife, a brother-in-law of the defendant named Cornelius Buckley, and some lady friends of the defendant's wife, also joined the party in the sitting-room, and all remained for some time conversing.

7. Between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock, on the same evening, John Colbert brought down from his bedroom to the said sitting-room, some of the bottles of stout previously referred to. Some time later he supplied portion of the stout to his two guests, Jeremiah Connolly and James Wade, in the said sitting-room, who there consumed the same. No other person consumed, or was supplied with, any of the said stout.

8. The said John Colbert supplied the stout to Jeremiah Connolly and James Wade, both of whom were his private friends, bona fide...