MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 November 1931, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Greymouth Court. Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. For riding an unlighted cycle after sunset, William Quinn was fined 5/with 10/- costs. Robert Fitzmaurice pleaded guilty to the theft, on or about September 26. at Wallsend, of a bread and butter knife, valued at 7/-, and a dinner fork valued at 4/6, the property of Isabella Mayhew. The Senior-Sergeant stated that defendant was boarding at complainant’s house for some time, and left to go to a bach. After he had gone, it was found that the knife and fork were missing, and they were recovered from defendant’s hut, by Constable Rodgers. It was defendant’s first offence.

Fitzmaurice was fined £l, and ordered to pay 10/9 witness's expenses. An order was made for the return of the goods to the owner. Eight statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises during prohibited hours, without lawful excuse, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. Five second offenders were each fined £l, with costs, and two third offenders were each fined £2, with costs.

DOBSON MINER FINED. Charges of disorderly behaviour, and the use of insulting words, were preferred against Andrew McNulty, it being alleged that the offences were committed on the road at Dobson, on October 28. Defendant was represented by Mr T. F. Brosnan, who entered a plea of guilty to each charge. The Senior-Sergeant stated that McNulty was one of the men engaged in the strike, “dr whatever it was,” at Dobson. The conversation between McNulty and three men turned to work troubles, and defendant remarked that he would soon be starving. One of .the other men said that McNulty seemed to be able to get his beer. Defendant said that he could get his beer all right, and he then used the language complained of. He also got hold of one of the men by the throat, and used him pretty roughly. They were separated, but defendant had another go. There were three witnesses in Court, and their expenses'amounted to £l/10/6. Mr Brosnan said that he had been consulted only a few minutes before the Court opened. Defendant told him that he also had witnesses. McNulty had certainly had a few drinks on the day of the incident, and it was quite easy to understand how feelings became heated. As to the disorderly behaviour, defendant was not a very big fellow, and Mr Brosnan did not think he could have done a great deal of harm. It was the first case of its kind at Dobson, and it would be a pity if they went on. The present case was not serious. There was no suggestion of anyone “scabbing” at the moment at Dobson, and it was possibly just an unfortunate phrase used by defendant. He asked the S.M. to treat McNulty as leniently as possible. Defendant was fined 10/-, with 1.9/Court costs and £l/10/6 witnesses’ expenses, on the charge of disorderly behaviour, and fined 10/- with. 10/Court costs, on the charge of using insulting words. He was allowed one month for payment.

“THE POLICE ARE COMING!” RAILWAY "HOTEL RAID. Highly-contradictory was the evidence, given by the police and the defendants, when the licensee of the Railway Hotel, William O’Brien, and his wife, Amelia O’Brien, were charged with breaches of the Licensing Act. The licensee was charged that, on Sunday, Octobei- 18, he unlawfully opened his premises for the sale of liquor, unlawfully exposed liquor for sale, and unlawfully sold liquor. His wife was charged with unlawfully supplying liquor. Both defendants pleaded not guilty, and were represented by Mr J. W. Hannan. The Senior-Sergeant stated that, at 8.45 p.m., Sergeant Murray and Constable Cogswell were returning from Cobden on their bicycles, and were in plain clothes. On passing the Railway Hotel, they saw several men standing outside, including the licensee, and jumped off their bicycles, with the intention of visiting the hotel The licensee did not notice them until they were right alongside him, and he then rushed into the hotel and yelled out, “The police are coming!” The Sergeant also rushed in, and was there when the licensee pulled down the bar slide. There were three glasses containing liquor on the slide, and three men were standing in front of the slide. The men ran towards the back of the hotel, and two got away, the third being caught by the Sergeant. The man caught had no excuse for being on the premises. The Sergeant, asked the licensee’s wife why she served the men, and she said that she served lodgers. The licensee said that one of the lodgers who was served with liquor was on the footpath with him, and that the other went out to the back of the hotel. Further questioned, the licensee and his wife said that they had no explanation to make. Sergeant Murray stated that the licensee did not recognise the police until they close beside him, and he then ran inside, shouting a warning. Witness dropped his bicycle, and ran in after the licensee. The bar slide was open, and three glasses, apparently containing beer, were on it. Three men were standing at the slide. The licensee pulled down the slide and shut the glasses inside. The bar was lit up, and the licensee’s wife was behind.the slide. Witness and the constable ran after the three men, and witness caught one of them. He had no excuse for being on the promises. Asked for his excuse for having the men in the hotel, and the bar ope.n, the licensee said that two lodgers had just been served. Asked about the men who ran out to the back, the licensee said that two of them were lodgers. Witness pointed out that if they were lodgers they would not run away from the police. The licensee did not explain why he calle,d out, “The police are coming!” Witiiess asked Mrs O’Brien why she served the men, and she said she just served two lodgers. She said that she did not see the man whom witness caught. She did not explain why three glasses were on the slide.

To Mr Hannan: He went into the bar, and found the three glasses there. He pointed them out to Mrs O’Brien, but she did not explain why there were three. Witness would not come

to the Court and tell a lie. He was) quite satisfied there were three glasses on the slide before the latter was pulled down. The licensee and his wife both said that two lodgers had been served. Witness did not go out to the footpath to see the lodgers, —he was satisfied when he saw three strange men at the slide. The licensee’s wife said that she did not know the man witness caught was there. The man denied having a drink, but they would all do that! Constable Cogswell stated that he was three or four paces behind the Sergeant. It was correct that the licensee ran inside and shouted that the police were; coming. Witness saw three men at the slide. He saw some glasses, but could not say how many, because he went straight through to the back yard. The licensee was in the act of pulling down the slide when witness entered the hotel. He went after two of the men, and heard the back gate slam. The Sergeant caught the third man. Witness was present when the Sergeant questioned the licensee and his wife. Mrs O’Brien was in the bar, which was lit up. She said she served two lodgers, and did not know the man the Sergeant caught. She said that the two men -who ran out to the back were lodgers, but the Sergeant said that if they were lodgers they would not run away. The licensee gave no explanation when asked why he called out that the police were coming. The only excuse given by the defendant was that two lodgers were served. To Mr Hannan: The licensee said that only two lodgers were served, but he would naturally say that. Mr Hannan: I think the Sergeant tripped over in the, excitement coming through the swing doors?

Witness said he did not know anything about that. In answer to a further question, he said that the Sergeant might have asked the licensee why three glasses were there. Mr Hannan: You cannot see anything that is in favour of the licensee!

CASE FOR DEFENCE. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr Hannan said that the evidence of the licensee and his wife was absolutely contradictory to that of the police. William O’Brien stated that he was at the front door as the police approached. Two lodgers were served at the slide by Mrs O’Brien, about 30 seconds or a minute before the police arrived, and witness walked out to the front with one of them. When witness went to the front door, the man caught by the Sergeant was not in the hotel. One of the lodgers went to the front, and the other to the back. Mrs O’Brien was behind the slide. The, Sergeant asked witness to open the bar door, and they went in. There were only two glasses on the counter, and Mrs O’Brien told the Sergeant that she served two lodgers. The two glasses were pointed out to him distinctly. When the Sergeant entered, he said, “Chase those men, constable!” but the constable .only walked as far as the dining-room door. Witness suggested that the Sergeant question the lodgers, but he did not do so. When witness said that there were two lodgers at the slide, the Sergeant told him to “shut his mouth,” and went on questioning the man he caught. The Senior-Sergeant: What did you call out, “The police are coming!” for? —I never called “Police!” Do you mean to say that the Sergeant and constable would come here and. swear that, if you did not? Defendant denied that he called out, and said he did not know they were policemen until he heard a bang at the swing door, after he entered the hotel. He did'not see any men running out at the back. The Senior-Sergeant: It is peculiar that the police saw them. Was it just a frame-up, imagination, or what? Do you suggest that there was nobody there? —Yes.

You say it is not correct that you called out “Police!” and pulled down the slide? —It is not correct. And that there were only two glasses and that two lodgers w ( ere served just before the police arrived? —Yes. •

Mrs O’Brien stated that she was in the bar, and had served two lodgers, Ingram and Thomas. There were only the two glasses on the bar. She did not see the man whom the sergeant caught, and did not serve him. She had not seen him before, and told the sergeant that- She was positive that she served only the two lodgers. Witness pulled down the bar slide, just after the lodgers walked away. To the Senior-Sergeant: The slide must have been down when her husband walked out with the lodger. The slide was down when the police came in. There was nobody at the slide except the two lodgers, and she did not see three men run out to the back. She did not see the sergeant run after them, and catch one. She did not hear her husband call out that the police were coming. She denied serving anyone except the two lodgers. She denied that three other men were standing at the slide, and that they ran away. She heard a stumble in the passage, but did not know what it was. To Mr Hannan: The two lodgers each shouted, and they were at the slide five or ten minutes. No other drinks were served. She was in the bar the whole time. Henry Thomas stated that he had been a lodger for some years. On the, evening of the police visit, he had two drinks at the slide, with Ingram. After he had the drinks, he went out to the back. He did not see any other men there, but knew that one man came in the back door, and along the passage. When witness returned, he was told that the police had been in. Mr Hannan said that, if necessary, the other lodger could be called, but he submitted that there was no case to answer. The licensee’s wife was charged with unlawfully supplying liquor, but there was no evidence that she supplied a man not entitled to be supplied. The S.M. decided to hear the evidence of the other lodger. Charles Ingram stated that he was ait the front door when the police arrived, and had been there only a short while. He had prior to that had a drink at the slide with Thomas. No one else -was there. Witness and Thomas had two drinks, and he left Thomas at the slide. There would hardly be time for three other men to be served between the time witness left the slide, and the arrival of the police. He no sooner got to the door than the sergeant arrived. T 6 the S.M.: The licensee was at the door when witness got there, bull he did not notice when the licensee! re-entered the hotel. He did not think the licensee was on the footpath when

the police arrived. Witness did not know the men were police, until the Sergeant dropped his bicycle and rushed into the hotel. Witness did not follow them in. The Senior-Sergeant submitted that the two lodgers did not enter into the case at all. What the prosecution .was based on was the fact that the sergeant found three men standing at the bar slide, and the licensee’s actions in calling out, “The police are coming!” and pulling down the slide. He contended that the glasses on the slide and the presence of the three men provided evidence of sale. There was no other person to supply the men, except Mrs O’Brien, who was there with the full knowledge of the licensee

Mr Hannan pointed out that there was no evidence whatever that auj r person who was not entitled to have liquor, had liquor. The police said that they saw three men going out at the back, but Mrs O’Brien did not see them. The men could be accounted for, as there was the licensee himself, the man who was caught by the Sergeant, and Thomas, who went out to the back. The same explanation was given to the police at the time as was given in Court. Why did not the sergeant verify the statement from the lodgers, at the time? He submitted that the supply had been accounted for, and that the charge against Mrs O’Brien must be dismissed. The Senior-Sergeant said that the police were not concerned about the sale to the two Jodgers, but to the three men who ran out at the back door. After reviewing the evidence, the S.M. said that he had to decide, in face of the conflict of evidence, which was the more likely to be true. The question of the three men who ran out to the back was no doubt what Mrs O’Brien referred to when she said that she heard a rush in the passage. It was no doubt a rush caused by those men running away, and the police following them. The fact that the licensee rushed into the hotel ahead of the police, in itself, led to the suspicion that he, knew or was afraid that something' was going on which he did not want the police to see. Had it been true that nobody but the two lodgers were at the slide, there was no necessity to conceal anything. The licensee need not have gone in with the police, but could have told them that two lodgers werq at the slide. He did not adopt that course, but rushed in ahead, in a state of some alarm and perturbation, and sang out that the police were coming, and pulled down the slide. It was no offence to open a bar or slide, to supply men who were lawfully entitled to be supplied. He was quite satisfied on the evidence before him, that thre'e men were at the bar slide. The two lodgers had left the slide before the police arrived. There was only one inference from the evidence, and that was that there had been unlawful supply of liquor. Had the police not arrived at that moment, the three men would have stood by the slide, and enjoyed their liquor. He must enter a conviction against each defendant.

The Senior-Sergeant said that O’Brien was convicted last month, and fined £2, an offence being committed by the man he left in charge of the hotel during his absence. The present was the first time he had offended personally. O’Brien was fined £5, with 10/costs, on the charge of unlawfully opening his premises for the sale of liquor, the other charges being withdrawn. Mrs O’Brien was fined £l, with 10/- costs.