Mr. Quaritch, of Treasury Counsel, removed his pince-nez.
“The police contend that you were drunk. Three things, they say, corroborate their contention. First, Lord Pembury, you collided with another vehicle. Secondly, you smelt of liquor. Thirdly, a bottle and glass, both of which had recently contained beer, were found in a pocket of your car. Very good. Our answer to the first is that the collision was due to a skid, which was itself due directly to the fact that a taxi shot without warning across your path and indirectly to the fact that you were admittedly driving rather faster than the condition of the streets was warranting. Am I right?”
“Perfectly,” said the delinquent.
The lawyer inclined his head.
“Our reply to the second is that, very shortly before the accident happened, you had consumed one half of a small bottle of beer.”
“I had.”
“Very good. What is our answer to the third?”
Pembury shrugged his shoulders.
“I’ve no explanation to give. Finding a bottle and glass doesn’t prove I was blind.”
“It’s pretty strong evidence of drinking. Mind you, I know you weren’t drunk. But we’ve got to satisfy the Court. What construction will the Court put upon the discovery of that bottle and glass? Assuming the Magistrate is reasonable, he will consider it peculiar. Even if they’re addicted to drink, people of your position do not as a rule go about with a glass and a bottle of beer. So, finding the discovery peculiar, the Magistrate will expect an explanation. If you don’t give him one, he will very naturally put the worst construction upon those unfortunate utensils.”