TROUBLE IN HOTEL

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 99, 21 January 1926, Page 3

TROUBLE IN HOTEL

POLICE PROSECUTION FAILS

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CONSTABLE

A cripple with only one leg and one arm came staggering across the bar, unsteadily making his way in the direction of the door. Suddenly he lost his balance and went crashing down, just as another man came running over to assist him. At this moment a policeman entered the hotel. He made for the bartender, and pointing to the cripple, said: “What are you doing with a drunken man in here?’’ Before the bartender had time to answer, a voice chimed in: “Leave him alone, you fool, you must be mad.” In a second the constable had turned around, bringing under his line of vision one by the name of Tucker. What happened after this is not at all clear, but an argument arose, and the cripple and Tucker were taken off to the Mount Cook police station.

Light was thrown on the case yesterday, when Charles Henry Tucker stood in’the dock atMlie Magistrate’s Court, charged with having used insulting words to a member of the police force. Accused pleaded not guilty, declaring that he had not used the words, “Leave him alone, you fool—you must be mad.”

The first witness was Constable Harvey, of the Mount Cook police. He stated'that when passing by the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel at about 5.30 p.m. on December 23, a crowd outside attracted his attention. He immediately entered the premises, just in time to sec a drunken man fall ovet in the bar. “What’s this man ’doing here?” he asked the barman. The latter had hardly replied when another came forward' and used the insulting words alleged. Witness thereupon arrested the accused. Mr. A. B. Sievwright (counsel for Tucker) : As far as you know, the other constable you called in to arrest the cripple did not hear the insulting words used ? Witness: No. Before vou arrested Tucker and took him to the station did you make any inquiries as to whether any’ others heard him? —"No.”

Did not the barman say the allegations you were making against Tucker were untrue? —“No." Did vou not sav to the barman that the house was being badly conducted? —"No. What I said was that if I could not get any evidence it must be badly conducted.” That means to say that you are prepared to damn the hotel just because the barman would not make a statement to you?—"No.”

Were vou drinking that day, Constable Harvey?—“No. I don't drink." Npw. come, is it not a fact that when Tucker went to explain the position to you about the man only just entering the bar you said, "Shut your mouth or I’ll wipe vou across the kisser,” at the same time using an obscene phrase?— "It is incorrect.” What will you say when I call three witnesses to swear on oath that you used those words? —“I will say they are. lying.” , _ Did you not offer to fight Tucker <n the bar or anywhere eUe t “No, Tucker was the first to start on me.” Did not Tucker repeatedly ask vou to let him walk of his own accord to the station?—"He did.” Then why didn’t you let hitn?-"Be-cause he was a young, active man and could easily have run away.” Constable Bradlev was the next witness. He said that he arrested a cripple from the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel on the date mentioned. He did not hear anv words spoken to the other policeman who arrested Tucker. Accused Denies the ADalr. Tucker in evidence declared that Constable Harvey was lying. The latter, he said, wanted to fight him as soon as he tried to explain that the cripple bad not had a drink in the hotel. He himself had only had one drink that day and that was beer. “The sergeant,” lie said, referring to Constable Harvey, "acted queerlv. He was foaming at the mouth. ‘l’ll smack vou across tjie kisser ’ he said. 'Come round to the Basin Reserve and I’ll fight you, or anywhere else you like to mention.’ I used no insulting words at all to him at any time,” witness added. "Thought He was Jack Johnson. William Liney, barman, said that Gardiner, the cripple, had not been served with drink in the hotel at all. As a matter of fact, he had only been in a few minutes when Harvey entered. The latter saw the cripple fall. He went up to witness and started to "get on to him” about it when Tucker, who was standing bv the bar, tried to explain. This annoyed the constable and he became furious. “Shut your mouth,” he said, “or I’ll smack you over the kisser.” He then offered to fight Tucker straight away. “What was the attitude of Harvev?” asked Mr. Sievwright. _ Witness: He seemed' to think lie was Jack Johnson. (Loud laughter.) Continuing, Linev stated that Tucker did not insult the police; the arrest was unprovoked. Corroborative evidence was given by a cabinet-maker, Walter Landner, who said that there was really no reason for the arrest at all. Insulting words were never used. Case Dismissed. The Magistrate said that the police had not proved their case, and he must therefore dismiss the charge. Mr. Sievwright asked that the prosecution pay expenses. Mr. Page: Ts that the rule? Mr. Sievwright: Yes, as far as I know.

Mr." Hart (clerk of the Court) : It is not the rule at all, your Worship. The Magistrate said that the police had to perform a public duty, and could not be expected to pay all expenses when they failed to establish a case. For that reason he would not make an order for costs against them.