HARTLEY ARMS' CASE.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 1691, 19 June 1929, Page 6

HARTLEY ARMS' CASE.

SOME STARTLING EVIDENCE. POLICE METHODS CRITICISED. The ; case in which William Wihnot Wheatland, licensee- of the Hartley Arms Hotel, at Clyde, was charged on two eouuts, ■ one, with obstructing the police in the execution of duty and two with aiding and abetting Tom Marshall to be on licensed premises after hours .was heard before Mr 11. J. Dixon, S.M. at the Clyde Court on Tuesday, June \4. Sergeant Armstrong prosecuted and Mr Harlow appeared for the defendants.

.. The defence was to the effect that the police were not prosecuting but persecuting the licensee. . <c The evidence of Sergeant Armstrong j of Clyde was that lie received information "down the street" that a breach of the Licensing Act was taking place at the Hartley Arms Hotel. He (Sgt. Armstrong) called in at the other two hotels and then went to ! the Hartley Arms Hotel. On walking down the passage the sergeant's attention was attracted by the dropping of a slide in the bar. He went round to the telephone and saw Tom Marshall.standing there with a glass in his hand. He asked : him .what he was doing; there at that time of the night. Marshall said that he was . staying at the hotel for the night and that he had booked- No. 3 room. The. sergeant then went back to the. bar I door and knocked. On being admitted by the licensee lie found Miss Wheatland and a lady in the bar. He asked t Miss Wheatland what she was doing j there and was told that she was cleanI i n g up the bar. The. sergeant then 'turned to the other lady and asked her why she was there. The lady replied that she was there giving Miss Wheatland a hand to. clean up the bar. In the words of the sergeant: I then went down the passage with Wheatland and went towards the kitchen. I was about to enter when Wheatland threw his. arms around me and told 'me that I ( would not get in there. I saidj do you realise what you are doing? If you do that again I will take, yoii to the cells. Wheatland: You can't do it; . Sergeant:. It will be done if you go in pieces. , ■'-: I

Mr Harlow in eross-examining the sergeant, asked, how long it jvas between the time he received the message about the Hartley Arms Hotel and on entering these premises. The 'sergeant admitted first of visiting the other two i hotels. Mr Harlow pointed out'that this was a very unlikely thing for the sergeant to do. Then in regarding to I Tom ; 'Marshall.- In the evidence of this ease which had previously been hearfl the sergeant had' omitted to say thai Marshall 1 had a glass of beer in his hand. Sgt. Armstrong said that he did not think it was necessary to mention it in the other case. Mr Harlow asked the sergeant about his frequent visits to the hotel, sometimes doubling back on his tracks'in the 'hope of catching | the licensee on some charge. 'Mr Har--1 low endeavoured to show that The case was not one of prosecution but, persecution. -The' defence 7 ' brought up several incidents;to give reasons why Wheatland had told the sergeant that the kitchen was strictly private. It appears from later evidence tiuft Sergeant Armstrong .had been" in tl* habit of prowling round the hotel, peepr ing under, blinds' and walking into rooms without announcing himself;y Mr Harlow questioned him on the occasion on which Mrs 'Wheatland; liad accosted him (Sergt Armstrong) when he had come out of her daughter's and, maid's rooms at the back of the hotel. The' sergeant gave the: excuse that he was looking for. someone. He told the court that the police were entitled- to enter any room on the place and thisincident was only a case of throwing mud at the police. *• / In support of the allegation of persecution Mr Harlow said that the sergeant had- been at the hotel ; as of ten as three times within a' comparatively short space of time. ' ' ' Asked why he wanted to get into the kitchen; the sergeant said it was not the kitchen, but "the pantry he wanted to get into. He had reason to believe that j there was < • someone in there who had no lawful'right to be there. ' -, ' ; ••;•'; '" '■

111-the course of his cross-examina-tion the sergeant maintained - that no room in the hotel was private to him. He had access to any room. '■- ■ -< The evidence of John Keane tlisclosed the fact that the kitchen door was three parts open and that the sergeant from where he stood could see right in.. The "witness said, that the licensee did not put his arms arojmd the sergeant' but simply placed his hand on the door and pointed to the notice ''strictly private,'"'. and said, "You can't go.iiij there, sergeant." Miss Wheatland came down behind he/ father and'without any difficulty'was able to walk- into the kitchen.

' When Doris Wheatland was hi the box slic said that Sergeant Armstrong had' come into the bar 'and had asked her what she was doing thero. ,Bhe had 4 told him that' she 'was fulfilling 'a promise that she had given' to her father to clean the'bar. Her father had gone to the social'and she had first of all given a ' pupil a lesson : whicli ■• made !• the hour of cleaning the bar'well, on \, in the night. The other lady' was ; in the bar at the time was' not there ;' k> help her but simply--'to 'Keep her i 'company. The sergeant had' told- her ! to "shut up?' when she had offered--'to' j [explain the reason for th 6 lady's pre-'! Iscnce.-He,had.again told her to *'shiit'-. the kitch'en. The police official i

appeared to be in a" very-bad temper. She was positive that her father did not put his arms around Sergeant Armstrong. He placed - ; his hand on ■ the door above' the sergeant's. She was present when the sergeant remarked about taking her father to the cells in pieces and had rejoined that he would ;gb there in pieces too. The witness ! said that they had a good deal to put

up with from Sergeant Armstrong. Asked about how she got into the kitchen, Miss Wheatland said that she had had no trouble in passing her father and the- sergeant; the door was three parts open. 'Mrs Wheatland' gave the court the full story about the incident where , she had spoken to Sergeant Armstrong J after entering the rooms of her maid

ami uaugiuer. oergeani Armstrong had not given' her a satisfactory explanation: It had. become a habit for the sergeant to be around the hotel and he' never knocked before entering a. room. In cross-examination Mrs Wheatland admitted that she was only told about the .peeping practices. She had never seen iti ' The licensee said that he had been subjected to "dressing downs" from Mrs Wheatland over the manner which.

the sergeant had been prying and peeping round the hotel and had decided to I put a stop to it. He did not put his, arms around the, sergeant but simply put his hand on the door and pointed to the notice " strictly private' '■ bn the door and had .said you can't go in there sergeant. The .other evidence was corroborative of,.the previous witnesses. In cross-examination Wheatland said that, Sergeant, Armstrong had visited.him three times after 6 o'clock. He had watched the sergeant hide bq--1 hind motor cars. peering through the glass of the wind screens watching for anyone, entering the hotel. ,>/■ -i The case was adjourned .to Dunedin where the evidence of Miss Eichards, a former employee : of the Hartley Arms, was taken. £.'./•

, His ■ Worship, in. suinihing up, said> that there had beeii no denial of the; first charge; there had been some of obstruction, but he was quite prepared to accept the statement of the defendant, who was inexperienced as a' licensee. ; He imposed a fine of 10s < and' court costs (105).,, ' j",