Beer Boycott Led To Fracas In Hotel: Story Told In Court Today

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 April 1948, Page 6

Beer Boycott Led To Fracas In Hotel: Story Told In Court Today

A fracas Which arose over the beer-price issue at the height of the boycott last year, in the public bar of the Railway Hotel at Kumara junction oil October 18, was described at length in. the Police Court at Greymouth today, when four men faced a series of charges. All of the men were convicted of behaving in a disorderly manner in the bar and were fined £5, with costs, by Mr 11. J. Thompson, S.M., of Wellington, who deputised for Mr A. A. McLachlan, S.M., at today’s sitting of the court. The cases originally came before the court on December 1, but Mr McLachlan declined jurisdiction and they were adjourned.

The four defendants were Joseph; Dando, labourer, of Taylorville; lan Thomas Gray, miner, of Taylorville;’ Alexander McDougall, miner, of Tay- ( lorville, and Ernest O’Malley, mine, worker, of Greymouth. Dando was charged with behaving 1 in a disorderly manner in the bar of. • the hotel. Gray was charged with; using indecent language within the:; hearing of Mary Adelaide Haybittie | and others in the public bar and also j with wilfully damaging 12 beer glass- ■ es, a jug, four ash trays, a glass decanter, a quantity of bird seed andl • a quantity of coconut matting, of a/ total value of £2 14s, the property ■ of Walter Henry' Haybittie, thereby, committing mischief, and also with behaving in a disorderly manner in the bar. McDougall was charged with using obscene language within the hearing of Mary Haybittie and; others in the bar and also causing ; wilful damage to the same articles as mentioned in the charge against Gray, thereby committing mischief, and also with behaving in a disorderly manner. O’Malley was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner in the bar. ; All of the defendants were repre- j. sented by Mr J. K. Patterson, of | Reefton. They pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and elected to be dealt with summarily. The prosecution was conducted by Senior Sergeant R. C. Mcßobie. Sevenpenny Charge The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Walter Henry Haybittie said that about 9 p.m. on October 18 the four defendants called at the hotel and O’Malley asked for three beers and a shandy, tendering 2s 6d. He asked the witness to have a drink, but he declined and gave O’Malley twopence change. O’Malley said, “What’s the meaning of the twopence?” andi the witness replied. “Four sevens are 28, 2s 4d and two pence change.” At that time beer was 7d and the boycott was on. Then, added the witness, McDougall spoke up and said, “What the h—are you coming at.” The witness made the same reply as he had made j to O’Malley and with that McDoug- 1 all called him ' certain names and i threw the glass of beer and its con- | tents at him, striking him on the. forehead. Other things were also, thrown and the witness then went; to call a man named McGill from; the parlour for assistance. I McGill went round to the front of i the bar, continued the witness, to try and pacify the defendants and; all of them, with the exception of; O’Malley, took to him. _ > “I asked them to cut it out, and with that McDougall said: ‘You rotten . I will crawl over, the ; counter' and murder you,’ ” continued the witness. “He got half way over and I had to do something, so I just picked up a mallet and hit him fair; on the head with it.” | The senior-sergeant: Was „ that necessary? The witness: Yes. The senior-sergeant: Were you in fear? The witness: Yes. Continuing his evidence, Haybittle said that he told McGill to “hold the fort,” while he went to Kumara for the constable, and he later returned with Constable Studholme. The senior-sergeant: What occurred when you hit McDougall with the mallet? The witness: He staggered and fell against a barrel of beer and I think that was when his head was cut. Replying to further questions by the senior-sergeant, the witness that he had just come out of the hospital at the time, after a nine-month’s illness. Eleven or 12 glasses had been broken by being thrown about. Examined by Mr Patterson, the ■ witness said the men had been in the hotel about 15 minutes when, he went for the police. He denied that there was no disturbance until he hit McDougall on the head and also that the men had started to leave when he got into an argument with O’Malley. . He also denied that the glass of beer , was merely knocked over, and fell ; on his waistcoat. He admitted that , he had hit McDougall hard enough to knock him unconscious, but said ■ he thought the principal injury had been received when McDougall fell against the barrel. To the senior-sergeant: It was generally known that his was a 7d hotel at the time. Dando was doing his best to quieten the others. The wife of the previous witness, , Mary Adelaide Haybittie, said that she went into the bar when she heard the disturbance and asked the de- ■ fendants what was going on. They replied that they wanted four 6d beers and she replied: ‘You cant get them here” and told them to go back ■ where they had been having beer. Thev had brought bottles of beer into the bar and put two on the counter. O’Malley would insist on a 6d beer and she had to put up with it for about three-quarters of an hour, while her husband was away. Dando was on the bar trying to get over to Dump beer, and McDougall used bad* language to her. She was not aware that her husband had gone for the police and eventually she went over to the station to ring for a constable. < “Before I went over they threw everything they could get . their j hands on at me,” added the witness. . “I could not put up with it any ;

longer.’ The senior-sergeant: Where -was McDougall at this time? The witness: He was in the bar. I had given them cloths to fix him up. I offered him a brandy. He refused it, but O’Malley drank the whisky. They paid for nothing. McDougall called me a • I had to put up with it for about an hour. Examined by Mr Paterson, the witness said she was in the sitting room and did not see the men enter the hotel. When she entered the bar McDougall was lying on the floor and she did not see anything wrong with him until O’Malley asked for three bar cloths to bandage his head. Gray was picking up the bar counter mats arid she hit him on the knuckles with a tray. Robert Hudson McGill, lorry

driver, of Kumara Junction, said he was sitting in the parlour with Mrs Haybittie when Haybittie came in from the bar, covered in beer, and said: “Come quick, Bob, they are throwing glasses of beer all over the place! The witness added that he went to the side door of the bar and met McDougall. He went to pull McDougall outside, but O’Malley pulled him back into the bar. After describing a conversation which took place regarding 7d beers, the witness added that several other people arrived off a bus and were going to buy a drink when McDougall told them not to pay 7d. One man intimated that he would do so and McDougall challenged him. “I grabbed McDougall and threw him against the wall,” continued the witness. “The next, Gray grabbed hold of me and was punching me. Dando pulled him off and sajd ‘One at a time is good fishing’.” The witness added that he asked the defendants to go home., but McDougall said he was not going until he got a 6d drink. “He grabbed hold of a bottle and was going to hit Haybittle with it. I was arguing with Dando and the next thing I knew was that McDougall was on the floor, with his head bleeding.” Served Beer Himself Haybittie, continued the witness, then indicated that he was going for the constable and the witness then got behind the bar. When he refused O’Malley a drink, O’Malley asked Dando to get one and Dando got on the bar. The witness had him nearly persuaded to get off, when O’Malley said: “Don’t let him bluff you—get us a drink.” Dando got over and served out four drinks, putting down 2s 6d. After warning Dando that to interfere with the till would be thieving, the witness produced change for 2s 6d out of his own pocket. Gray then said “ him” and put the 2s in his own pocket. Dando was prepared to go, when O’Malley asked him to give them another drink, which he did, just as Constable Studholme walked in. In reply to questions by Mr Patterson, the witness said he was not employed by Haybittle, but had been a personal friend for six years and assisted him in the bar. He did not actually see Haybittle hit O’Malley with the mallet, but McDougall was crawling over the bar to him. Cause of Trouble Mr Patterson: Do you seriously suggest that O’Malley urged Dando to supply the liquor himself? The witness: Yes, certainly. I had Dando persuaded to get back over the bar when O’Malley said: ‘Don’t let him bluff you.’ Mr Patterson: .Have you known O’Malley to cause trouble before? The witness: No, but there was no beer boycott before. Mr Patterson: You put all this trouble down to the beer boycott? The witness: Down to O’Malley, through the beer boycott. In reply to a question by the senior sergeant, the witness said that when Haybittle first called him and he met McDougall at the bai- door he (McDougall) was unmarked, but Haybittle had beer all over him. Constable L. Sludholme, of Kumara, said that about 9.30 p.m. Haybittle called for him and he accompanied him back to the hotel. O’Malley was then just leaving by the front door. Inside, McDougall and Gray were standing at the bar counter, McDougall with a cloth round his head. McGill and Dando were behind the bar. Dando twice refused to give his name and told the witness to “take it out of his hide.” “The attitude of the three men was definitely aggressive,” added the witness. “The bar was in a general state of disorder, with glass strewn about the floor, and mats, beer and water on the floor. The defendants definitely had had liquor, but were not in such a state as to enable them to be locked up for drunkenness.” This concluded the evidence for the police and Mr Patterson submitted that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against O’Malley and asked that the charge against him be dismissed. Mr Thompson: I cannot accept that, Mr Patterson. I consider that there is a prima facie case against all four men, in the meantime. Case for Defence Opening the case for the defence, Mr Patterson said that, in the case of McDougall, the defence would be that he was struck with the mallet and rendered unconscious and therefore could not be guilty of using language or behaving in a disorderly manner. The first defence witness, O’Malley, said that he had made a practice of calling at the hotel for some years. It was just at the start of the boycott and there was a doubt as to which were 6d hotels. On the way home from Kumara they called in at the hotel and he (the witness) asked for four drinks and when Haybittle refused one, tendered 2/6. Haybittle gave him twopence change and the witness said: ‘What’s wrong? Surely you are not 7d?” Haybittle replied: ‘Yes, that’s the price, Ernie.” The witness retorted: “I am sorry if that is the case, we can’t drink it. We will see you again.” The witness added that he and the other defendants were just on the way when a bus load of people arrived and a “bit of a controversy” arose over 7d beers. “I saw some beer knocked over during the argu-

ment, and Haybittie got the benefit of it,” continued the witness. “He seemed to think it was aimed at him. I continued talking to the bus driver and when I looked round I saw Haybittle leaning over the bar and he struck McDougall over the head. As McDougall fell he knocked a few things off the bar.” After that incident, said the witness, Haybittie left. The controversy was over the boycott and he had told Haybittie that it was more than their jobs were worth to drink 7d beers. “Down the Road” Referring to Mrs Haybittie’s evidence, the witness said he thought it could be discounted, as she was so disturbed. “I did not again ask for a drink,” continued the witness. “If W© had been caught in a 7d pub we

would have been sent down the road. My idea was to get away as quickly as possible, once I found out it was a 7d hotel.” . The witness added that any disturbance was the result of Haybittle hitting McDougall on the which was “rather a rotten thing and caused ill feeling.” lie denied that anything was thrown at Mrs Haybittle. Examined by the senior-sergeant, the witness denied that he knew before they entered that it was a /d hotel and that trouble would be caused by demanding 6d beers. He also denied that he know that Mrs Haybittie’s ill-health had followed the incident. The senior-sergeant: If you were in such a hurry to get away, why did you tell Dando to get over and pull beer? The witness: I refute that evidence. The defendant Gray, in evidence, said he could not remember much of the evening. He corroborated the evidence of O’Malley that the beer was not thrown over Haybittle, and said he did not see McDougall struck as he was out at the back of the hotel. He said he did not hear any bad language and did not remember laying hands on McGill. He'denied that any liquor was drunk in the hotel or that anything was thrown round. 1

To the senior-sergeant: He saw Dando behind the bar, but did not drink any beer he pulled. They were not drunk, but they were not sober either, when they arrived at the hotel. “Did Not Remember Much

McDougall also said he did not remember much of the evening as he was “under the influence.” He remembered a mallet going up in the air and that was the last thing he knew until he woke up in Wallsend. He had no idea why he was struck with the mallet. The senior-sergeant: You do not remember too much about this at' all?

The witness: No. This concluded the evidence for the defence and Mr Patterson briefly addressed the court. He submitted that on legal authorities there was no evidence to sustain the charge of disorderly behaviour against O'Malley and also against Dando who, on the police evidence, if anything, adopted the role of peacemaker. Mr Patterson also submitted that the charges against the other two defendants of using indecent and obscene language respectively were uncorroborated and that there was a conflict of evidence. McDougall was injured and could not have behave in a disorderly manner or have used language after he was struck. Magistrate’s Decision The Magistrate said that it was quite clear that the case of behaving in a disorderly fashion had been established against each of the defendants. The background to the matter seemed to be quite clear —that at tne time when feelings were high over 7cl beer, the fracas arose. That explained the certain amount of feeding. , , Continuing, Mr Thompson said that actually there had been no evidence to substantiate wilful damage to the extent of £2 14s, the only evidence being of the breaking of glasses which would not amount to that value. Therefore, the charges against McDougall and Gray relating to mischief would be dismissed. As far as the charges relating to indecent and obscene language were concerned, it was clear that they arose out of the same circumstances as the disorderly behaviour and he thought they could be.treated as one. On those charges (indecent and. obscene language) the defendants concerned would be convicted and discharged-

“The question arises what should be the penalty for behaving in a disorderly" manner,” continued the Magistrate. “I think it is quite clear that all of the defendants were equally liable, and I think after this period it will meet the ends of justice if each is fined £5.” The senior-sergeant applied for £3 16s expenses, but after Mr Patterson pointed out that the defendants had been put to extra expense through not being aware of the fact that Mr McLachlan would decline jurisdiction in the first instance, the Magistrate agreed to allow only half the amount. Each defendant was -therefore fined £5, with 9s 6d expenses and 12s 3d court costs. Other Cases Two statutory offenders, who were arrested for drunkenness in Greymouth on Saturday were each fined 10s, the amount of their bail. Thirteen first offenders • found on licensed premises after hours were each fined 10s with costs which amounted to 10s in 12 cases and 12s in the other. On a charge of cycling without a light in Bright street, Cobden on February 21, Walter Albert Rose, who did not appear, was fined 5s with 10s costs. James Melville Ord who did not appear was fined 5s with 10s costs for cycling without a light on Hart street, Blackball, on March 15.