Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.



Stephen Boreham was charged in the Police Court this morning with that on the 9th inst. he wa-s found drunk in Dowling street. Mr C ; . X. Scurr appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guiltv. Senior-sergeant Dart said that briefly the circumstances wero that on Monday night Mr Snowden, a visiting M.P. from England, was addressing a. meeting in the Garrison Hall. It was alleged that the defendant was there, that he was drunk, not very drunk, but sufficiently drunk to be objectionable, and that his conduct there was so annoying that someone representing the persons who were the lessees of the hall for the time being went to the subinspector of police and asked that someone should be sent to eject Boreham. A constable was sent along, and the defendant was put out.. lie didn’t go very easily, a slight amount of force having to be used to put him out. When he was got out bo would not leave the porch or go away, so that nothing was left but to lake him into custody on a charge of drunkenness. A person might be arrested for drunkenness possibly for two reasons. First, because he might bo so very drunk that it was necessary to arrest him for his own safety and protection. That was not so in this case. Secondly, a person might be arrested because he was in such a condition from drink that he made himself a nuisance to others. That was the reason given for the arrest in this case.

Constable Maiden stated that in consequence of a complaint on the, evening in question he went to the Garrison Hall, u here a No-license meeting was in progress and was directed to accused, who was drunk, hut not very drunk. He was far from being in a normal condition, and witness had no hesitation in saying that he had had a considerable amount nt lifjtior. WiuTess asked him to leave the hall, hut defendant shook his head, and had to be led out. When outside tho door he refused to go. and attempted to re-enter ihe hall. AVitnoss several times asked accused to go, hut he offered slight resistance, but eventually he was taken out into the street, where ho was arrested on a charge of drunkenness.

•Senior-sergeant Dart: If he bad not resisted would it have been necessary to arrest him? Witness: No.

Senior Sergeant; Why ? Witness: 1 was of opinion that he would have entered the hall and created further disturbance. Accused asked several times what he was charged with, and when told ho was charged with diunkenness ho said he was not a. criminal.

Senior Sergeant: I suppose you never told him he was? Witness : No. (Laughter.) Mr Scurr : Why did he have to ask so many limes'!

Witness : Because ho was drunk. Mr Scurr : In the ordinary way, would you have arrested him ?

Witness : He was quite capable of going home. In ivply to further questions by' Mr Scurr, witness stated that he went back to the hall to make inquiries to see if they wanted him charged with disturbing the meeting, but they did not. Asked to detail how he knew accused was drunk, witness stated that ho was lounging, and he seemed to have lost the use of his neck, avid his head seemed to be ton heavy for him. (Laughter.) In reply to Senior-sergeant Dart, witness slated that the reason given to him for them not wishing to lay a charge of disturbing tho meeting was that Boreham would make capital out of it to the workers.

Joseph Edwin FroM, organising agent for tho Temperance Deform Council of Ota so, said that, lie hr.d charge of the hall on the night in question. The defendant interjected several (hoc?, and Mr Snowden could not get, on with his address. iWtncss asked l!oi cham to stop interrupting. He raid he would not obey him, but he would obey the Mayor. The Mayor had personally asked hint to desist. He <l:d not obey him at first. The defendant smelt strongly of liquor, and witness would not say that he'was sober, or that he was drunk. Witness thought that ho had evidently been drinking heavily and recovering. ’ \Vimn ho would not desist witness won! f..r the p'Jir r. To Mr Henri': He would say he was mt sober because he smell liquor on him. Ills interjections were not all' inteilig'-nt. Mr Hnrrr : Do you remember Mr ,Snowden saving that 'there we;o 55.0C0 eases of first offenders for in Xew Z°alu.nd. and Mr Ilorehnm interior!lug : “ 18,000 are allribu'aide, to FrohihlfionDo you not think that was fin intelligent interjection ? V\ it ness : Not at all. fDanchtor.) The Magistrate (Mr Bartholomew i : I think you had better ke-p on the straight path. TVTr 'rurr. Frank E. TTiihfcer. ,h.iirdre«F«r. said hr was at Mr Hncv.-den’s meeting and saw dyfeudiint conic in in the hail Tie thought then that lie v as under the influence of liquor. ■■Henior-sergeant ; What mads you think so ? Witness : Ho smelt strongly of liquor, and as he walked down the hall T eon Id ace. hi? walk w.-s different from a. wall; if be had been thoroughly sober. Mr Hcnrr : W?!!. was ].« drnnl. ? ■Witness: He was under tho influence cf drink. Mr Hcurr : If he bad had a. fdass he would bo under (he influence of liquor. boni or Mergesnt : No. Mr burr : Yes. The Magistrate : Oh. no. He might taka a glass and no one be any th« wiser. Mr Srurr : There nr,old be on influence. i he Magistrate : 1 here might be no appreciable influence. Thomas Scott, furniture dealer, said that the defendant/ was crrtainfv not sober. To Mr Scmr r Ilia bead v.-a c rilling «houl. He was drunk iu tb.e. 'h'Tid. (Laughter.) Constable. Hurley, watch-house keeper, said that the defendant was in au n.rguahle and quarrrlso'n'’ condition of drun- | kenness when brought to the station. Ho j made no complaint, and did not ask to I see a superior officer or a dcctcr. ! To Mr Hc-irr : Hr was not quarrclsonW i ■vita the police. Ho asked if Vic. was I charged with dninkenne-v-. Mr Hcnrr said that accused denied that he was drunk. He went to tho mc'-ting held under the auspices of the Prohibition party to listen to an ad drees on a subject in which he was deeply interested. During the course of the evening he interrupted On two or three occasions, and his interruption a were cf an intelligent nature, and had a bearing on the subject | under discussion. When asked by the ; Mayor to observe order, he agreed to do ‘ so. Ten minutes afterwards, and while he was silting quietly, ho was seized by the constable and taken out. Ho said that when the constable asked him to go gut he rose to do so, when the constable look him by the shoulders and walked him out. As to his condition, he said , that he had two medium beers 20 minutes before the meeting, and that was I all ho had that dav. TH© cei irbsmen who 1

had been called as witnesses were not used to liquor, end it was because they smelt drink on him that they said he was drunk. The charge of drunkenness was simply an afterthought on the part of the constable. Because he would not fo home it occurred to the, constable that he best thing to do was to charge him. with drunkenness.

Boreham, giving’ evidence, stated that after tea he had two medium beers, at Tattersalls—between a pony and a “long sleever.” (Laughter. 1 At the Garrison Hall he waited in the parch until they said the prayers and opened the meeting. Ho went in about a quarter past eight. During the meeting he interjected twice, and as the Mayor stated that there would be an opportunity for asking questions at the end, which was unusual, he desisted. Ten minutes after, a policeman came in and took him out. At the police station he was put into a cell.

Mr Scurr ; Did you go to sleep, Boreham ; No; I was highly amused. There was a drunk mm in the cell. (Laughter.) Mr Fcttrr : Yon could tee that? Boreham : I could hear him. (Renewed laughter.) Dir Scurr: .Were rou drunk?

Boreham : ! I was perfectly sober. I may have been drunic with excitement. He added that the Rev. Mr Gray saw him in the cell, and Senior-sergeant Dart and Sub-inspector Fouhy came in and made themselves at home.

In the course of cross-examination Senior-sergeant Dart asked if defendant would he surprised to learn that he was not present with Sub-inspector Fouhv, and was, as a matter of fact, at home m bed at the time.

Boreham stated that if that were the case hje_ would plead guilty. If it was not the senior sergeant it was his ghost. Senior-sergeant Dart.: I would like to meet him. There would be two good men instead of one.

ihe Rev. R. S. Gray said he was on the platform at the meeting. The defendant was sitting quietly when the constable arrived. He should say that tho defendant was not drunk in Iris legs. Ho should judge he had enough liquor to stimulate his recognised antipathy to Prohibition.

To tho Senior Sergeant: He should not have put him out. There was no doubt that the defendant interrupted so much that Dir Snowden could not proceed. Witness went bail for Boreham. He could not say that the Attendant was so drunk that if he eras a constable he would have arrested him. He believed ho had too much liquor in him.

Ibe (Senior 'Sergeant: You believe, then, he had too much liquor in him? Witness: Oh. yes. I believe if a man has a glass he has too much liquor. (Laughter.! Thomas Ireland, joiner, said he had two medium beers at. Tattersalls Hotel with defendant,

His Worship said that in deciding tha matter one had to look at all tha circumstances and tiic conduct of accused. In this case they had it that accused disturbed a public meeting to such an extent that an experienced platform speaker had to desist, from speaking, and that after being warned by the Mayor, accused frequently interjected. The constable said that accused's head wobbled as if bo had lost control of it, and that was corroborated by another witness. All the witnesses said that lie smelt of liquor. Accused himself said Ift was excited, and might have been drunk with excitement. They also had it that ha made no complaint whatever about his arrest. On the evidence lie certainly held that accused had been guilty of the offence charged. He would indict the usual penalty of &s and costs (6s), or 21 hours’ imprisonment.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

A CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS, Issue 15649, 13 November 1914

Word Count

A CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS Issue 15649, 13 November 1914

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.