AFTER HOURS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 695, 21 December 1909, Page 8

AFTER HOURS.

A. CONFLICTi OF; EVIDENCE. . ~ COMPLAINT ■. AGAINST A • CONSTABLE. . > Eyidenco of..a vory conflicting, nature: was heard in the Magistrate's . Court yesterday morning, when two men, PetorHartshorn: arid Edwin Albert Pyrke, were charged, before , Mr. W. G. IMddell, S.M., with having- been found on licensed - premises-—the Caledonian Hotel-after hours. Both pleaded not guilty, and were reprosonted by Mr. Blair.- ■ According- tovtho evidence of . the-constable on duty in Adelaide fioad oh'the.evening, of December 9,- the two : mon were observed to leave tho hotel about 11.15 p.m. On being asked to give their names, they refused, nnd were then arrested, and taken to the Mount Cook Station,, . . , .•. ■■■.-. Counsel' for tho defence argued that since the men \iete not in the hotei when 'seen by tho constable, they, "could not be charged with having been on licensed premises; the charges, hei contended, ought to bp dismissed. /."-.: His Worship:' But they were 6eon to leave the hotel. . . . Mr. Blair, continuing, explained ■ that Pyrke was a brewer's representative, and visited the hotel on bnsmess, leaving shortly after 10 p.m. Both men were stopped by the policeman, who spoke rudely- to , them. Subsequently, they proceeded to thei Mount Cook Police Station to make a. complaint to the sergeant' about the constables behaviour. .- "'.'-, ■ .-.. Peter Hartshorn, an ex-publican, stated that he loft tbo hotel between 10 and IOiO pm. in .company . with Pyrke. They". had .delayed their departure in deference to the wishes of the licensee, who hod asked them to.wait until he:had cleared,the till, when ; they would have . a parting drink. He denied that he and Pyrfco had bsen arrested' in the" street, and corroborated . counsel's .statement concerning the conduct of the constable,' who, he said, Had used disgusting language. They went to the Police Station to make a complaint against .the constable, and on arriving there were locked .up.' They wore not even, allowed bail,.although they had-£IOO between them. To his Worship: They,were convicted of the charges of drunkenness next morning; ■ '■'.../ El\rin A. Pyrke,:'brewer's representative, said that he had gone to the hotel in connection with a business increased order for the Christmas season—and had been thoro all the evening. In settling his business : wiih'the licensee, tho-latter had asked him"to' wait: a,while.'. It was-after. 10' o'clock whenthe negotiations were finally; settled. Ho also refeCTed to the conduct. , of the constable. '. His Worsliip, said-that- the constable's: conduct. was -. apart from the ■ question as to whether- they, wore in tho .-'hotel after • closing hours .or not : They had-'admitted that-' they were. They could lay ; . chatgo constable .with regard • to. his alleged conduct.' _ Mr., Blair contended that ■■ the. witness had a right.to be on the premises to busines'ij. ' ;". ■".,■■■.■ ■■.'" -~ ". :,-"■;. . ; -.•;■ It was -further' stated by' the defendants. that they had been unable to. see the sergeant in charge at the police station when they desired to make a complaint ebneernine the conBtablo. .-■ .-■•■. ■'. ■■;;■' v . .;•—.' ' •■'' . was also given L T by. Sergeant -But--ledge, Mortimer Corliss,'- William O'Meara, and Archibald M'Kay. It was stated that the men did not .'appear to-be under, arrest when 6een walking towards ■ the station. They were walking in front, of the constable. . His WorsHp said that the charges would have to be.dismissed. A good, deal had been stated about the conduct of the constable, but why had the two mon not complained to the sergeant in! charge?, THey had said' that they could not see the sergeant in charge. He could hardly believe that. The point, however, was whether a breach of the Licensing Act had been committed, and there was no evidence to show, that there had, even although that construction .was likely, to be- placed on their.'de- : partirre-from'' the hotel-after 10 p.m.". " . " . v