Brisk Exchanges Between Crown Witness And Counsel Before Transport Authority

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 15135, 18 November 1949, Page 3

Brisk Exchanges Between Crown Witness And Counsel Before Transport Authority

rirATION FOR ROAD TIMBER LICENCE App opposed by railways

• I? interchanges between a witness, Graham E. Roberts., B - n ii fflcer of the New Zealand Railways Department, and a special oro counsel f or the applicant, were features of the &*' of an application heard by the Number One Licensing re .bea« * E j phelan, at Tauranga yesterday. Allt fc Implication was on behalf of the :New Zealand Lumber for whom Mr L. B. McKensie gave evidence. The Company a licence t 0 car ry logs and sawn timber in coDl Sorua, matamata, Whakatane, Tauranga and Taupo county. hearin g was directed by the Transport Appeal I-txr and the application opposed by the New Zealand Authority * whojn rw _ j Andrew appeared. A full report jtailways - bg publis j l cd in tomorrow's issue.

, * infident occurred after K*?« had stated that the bela nf the Putaruru Railway Manager w ■« t issue special the cartage of rf\ o mPutaruru when and if ;^ber . Sons were not available. Ml wa f" That is a ridiculous , is tne case. We have ' f^bf&izzs m the f Phelan He acts on my behalf K been given that power un- * rtain circumstances. C £ew:l think Mr Cooney JIr n i a misapprehension. ActuVfl the postmaster who issues * LmiS after being advised of *Sion by the stationmaster. ;: 'i P C oney: It still comes back to /•'King II is uite wrong on fihis stage Mr Roberts objectAll the chair he was occupyiS to the Railway DepartiSunsel, and Mr Cooney said ffiv "You have no right to say St You are not counsel in ttefwhile Mr Roberts was giv.vid'ence, he stated that he knew tat the State mills at Rotorua Z\A never use road transport. Ho Keen told this by the manager , , he New Zealand Products at !, rua , To Mr Andrew he said Lhe had an assurance of this. i Phelan: That is only hearsay -not evidence. » Mr Andrew: were told tna L vQurself by Mr Doherty? 'Witness' Yes. Mr Doherty stated that to me. It is the State Forests' jolicy to use the rail only. Mr Phelan: I still think that is only hearsay. You have not Mr Doherty here to give evidence to that effect. Mr Andrew: Can we differentiate between hearsay and investigation? When Mr Phelan stated that he could not accept the statement, after an interjection from Mr Cooney, Ir Andrew then contended that 'the whole of the evidence given by k applicant McKenzie was also hearsay, but Mr Phelan stated that iathat case it was his own evidence. Mr Roberts then remarked, "Apparently where my information comes from and where Mr McKenzie's comes from, makes a difference." To this Mr Phelan reified that there was a legal difference in accepting what Mr Roberts had said. Mr Coonsy knew the position. Mr Cooney: Apparently witness does not think that I know how to conduct a case after so many years at the bar." Mr Roberts (heatedly): Which to? Mr Cooney; Don't be impertinent iir, Mr Roberts then started to express an opinion to Mr Phelan, and Mr Cooney objected "You are a i fitness, not a counsel." he remarked : and addressing the Authority. "He las no right sir, to tell you how flie case should be conducted." .Mr Phelan: I rule the evidence 3 out of order. Continue with what PHI know and not what you have ttard, Mr Roberts. Mr Roberts then proceeded to

answer questions to Mr Phelan and was later cross-examined by Mr Cooney. During this cross-examination Mr Cooney asked witness if he had personally interviewed Mr Doherty regarding the latter's action in sending a trial shipment of 100,000 feet of timber to the applicant's marshalling yards at Tauranga. Witness denied that he had done this or that he had written to Mr Doherty to reprimand him. Mr Cooney. Did you expostulate with some one else in the Department about sending that trial shipment?

Witness: I might have done. Mr Cooney: I suggest that you did so and that is how ym are in the position to know "that the naughty boy will not offend again." Later during the cross examination witness in reply to Mr Cooney who had stated that the road transport services in New Zealand were essential to the railways, said that without railways the whole country would die. Mr Cooney: Yes. Also without road transport. , Mr Roberts: The country was built up without road transport—other than a horse and cart.

In subsequent cross-examination witness brought in the subject of national economy and Mr Cooney asked if it was not a fact that the Railways were being operated at a considerable loss. Witness: They are not run at a loss. I know more of the economics of the Railway Department than you do. Mr Cooney: From your manner in giving evidence and your attitude in the box, it would appear that you know more about everything than anyone else. Mr Roberts: It would seem that Mr Cooney has just realised that he has limitations.

Mr Cooney. When I am, as in this case, dealing with an impudent civil servant it seems I Have limitations, and must realise them. The interchange of remarks then became particularly heated and Mr Roberts, turning to Mr Cooney, said, "I am not a criminal in this court." Mr Cooney: No, but you are a witness on oath and should remember it! Mr Roberts then asserted that Mr Cooney's voice could be heard by the department in Wellington, if ho opened the window, and added, "If he wants to shout, then TTI meet him in the bar after five o'clock."

Mr Cooney: I accept that invitation.

Mr Phelan then reprimanded the witness and asked him to confine his remarks to answers to the questions put to him. "That applies to you too, Mr Cooney," he added. "Please let us keep to the business of the case." The remainder of Mr Roberts' cross examination was taken in a more subdued manner. At the conclusion of the honriir?, when reserving decision, Mr Phelan stated that he had heard many witnesses but none to take up as much time as Mr Roberts had done. "You do not obey the Chair too often," he added.