M'KAY CONVICTED.

Evening Star, Issue 14965, 27 August 1912, Page 5

M'KAY CONVICTED.

MR WIDDOWSON'S COMMENTS. Mr Widdowson, S.M., gave his judgment to-day in the case of Arthur Patrick M'Kay, who not only denied a charge of drunkenness recently preferred against him, but made serious charges against Constable Havelock, who arrested him. Tho Magistrate said that the first witness who gave evidence in respect to tho alleged assault by the constable was Osborne, who said that he saw the constable attempt to kick M'Kay two or three times, that he saw him push M'Kay and kick him, and, when he said something, kick him again; also, that M'Kay, entering the hotel, turned round and said: "This will cost you a bob or two in tho morning." Thompson, another witness, practically corroborated this. According to these two witnesses tho constable went into the hotel after a delay of three or four minutes (during which period it was suggested that the two constables were in conversation about what they ought to do), and shortly afterwards the man M'Kay came out with a hand on his shoulder. Waghorn stated that he was on his way from town when he passed tho hotel, and saw many people about. When he got to the end of the building (about 20 yards from the scene of the occurrence) he saw Havelock kicking M'Kay, and he said that there was only ono kick given. The hotelkeeper (Hargreaves) said that as the man M'Kay went into the hotel he complained that lie had hern kicked. He was excited, and wanted to ring up a solicitor. Then M'Kay himself said that the constable pushed him and kicked him, and when he went on the constable followed and kicked him again. M'Kay, however, contradicted nearly the. whole of his witnesses. Flo contradicted Osborne, who said that he first met tho three men (defendant and his companions) coming out of the hotel arm in arm, and that they walked towards King Edward road. * M'Kay stated that they came out and went to the lavatory, and then cam© back to King Edward road. Thompson said that ho met them when he was on the way to the lavatory, and Havelock stated that when he first saw Thompson he was standing near the gate to the lavatory. Again, M'Kay distinctly stated that he was kicked twice, while Waghorn (who must be taken to have seen the whole thing) said that he was kicked only once. Further, M'Kay said that he was arrested in the hotel for drunkenness, while the publican stated that the constable came in and said he wanted M'Kay for indecent language, making no reference to drunkenness. Both Constable Havelock and Constable Grigg swore positively that there was neither pushing nor kicking, and, apart from the evidence of the former, he (the Magistrate) was satisfied that Grigg had given evidence in a very straightforward and truthful manner. There was also this fact to be considered: that when M'Kay was taken to the lock-up he complained of kicking; to neither the sergeant nor the doctor. If M'Kay had been kicked as he described by a man of Havelock's weight, wearing the boots Havelock would be wearing (on night duty), ho would have been hurt, if not seriously hurt, and the most natural thing for him to do would have been to complain to the sergeant, or to the doctor, at all events. Tho only conclusion he could come to on tho question of assault was that no assault took place. This left tho matter of drunkenness, and here there was the evidence of the two constables and of Sergeant Henry. There was the regrettable incident on tho part of the latter that he did not allow the accused's father to see his son when ho went to the lock-up an hour after the arrest. Whatever Sergeant Henry's practice had been in other parts, he (tho Magistrate) was glad that it ivas not the practice here. Hero it was the practice to allow access to relatives. But Sergeant Henry did say " You had better get a doctor," and the doctor's evidence, while it showed that M'Kay was sober two hours after, also showed that his condition was not inconsistent with the condition described by the constable earlier. There was then the evidence of the police and tho evidence of the array of witnesses called by tho other side. He was of opinion that Waghorn (who was 20 yards away) had made a mistake, and that the rest of the evidence was unreliable. He held that tho man was drunk.

11l response to the question whether anything was known of the accused. Station-sergeant King handed in a list disclosing 13 convictions. Mr W. C. MaeGregor (defendant's counsel) asked did the Magistrate hoid that accused was found drunk in a public place, when the evidence of four witnesses showed that he was arrested inside ? Mr Widdowson replied that he believed accused was arrested outside the hotel. The usual fine of os, in default 24 hours' imprisonment, was imposed.