CONSTABLES ALLEGED TO HAVE ACCEPTED LIQUOR

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22664, 15 June 1948, Page 4

CONSTABLES ALLEGED TO HAVE ACCEPTED LIQUOR

(P.A.) NAPIER, June 15. Allegations that police constables had accepted gifts of liquor were made in the Magistrate’s Court last_ evening when James Griffin Bolger. licensee of the Caledonian Hotel, Napier, appeared on three charges of breaches of the licensing regulations. Bolger was charged with exposing liquor for sale on April 15 .fter hours, opening for the sale of liquor after hours, and selling liquor on licensed premises after hours.

Earlier in the day eight Napier residents were fined for consuming liquor on these premises after hours. Mr. L. G. H. Sinclair, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. L. W. Willis prosecuted for the police and Mr- H. W. Dowling appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty. 21 Persons in Private Bar

Two constables, Brian W llliam Nathan and Eric Courtney Stentiforci, gave evidence that when on duty <?utside the Caledonian Hotel on the night of April 15 they heard a noise and the sound of a cash register in the private bar of the hotel. Suspecting a breach, they entered the hotel and found the private bar door partly open and about 24 persons inside They took their names and as a result eight were prosecuted and two more would be prosecuted. The remainder were guests. When they first entered the bar Bolger. who was inside, came over and asked them if they could not come back at a time when things were quieter. Later, when the police were leaving Bolger adopted a hostile attitude and th r PEtened to “squeal.” . The constables were examined at length by Mr. Dowling as to whether they had ever received liquor from the licensee or staff while on duty, whether they had been on the premises ana nad consumed liquor while on duty, whether they had ever, been on the premises and found persons unlawfully there but had taken no action, and whether they had ever been on omy outside the hotel before and had heard a noise indicating breaches. . ; Negative replies were given in eacn C^S ° Warning of Visit Denied Constable Nathan, cross-examined, also denied telephoning Bolger with a warning that the police would soon be visiting his hotel. ...... Mr. Dowling: Did you go to the hotel 10 days or a fortnight before the offence and tell the licensee not to put out any more liquor for you? Witness: No. “Did you tell him that the town was getting too hot and that you could not take anything more for a while?—No. Mr. Dowling warned witness that if the statements were proved wrong by defence witnesses witness would be j shown to have committed perjury. Asking questions again, counsel still received* a negative answer. Opening the defence, Mr. Dowling said the evidence was solely that of two police officers. Counsel said he would call evidence to discredit the constables. . , , , , Joseph William Hurley, hotel bar manager, said six bottles of beer were left every night in the hotel garage where they were collected for the constables. Frequently the parcel contained a bottle of spirits- On one occasion witness said he handed to Constable Nathan nine bottles of beer and three of sherry. Had Drinks on Premises Witness said Constable Nathan warned him not to tell anyone about the incident or else no matter whera witness went in New Zealand the police would watch him closely. Constables, including Nathan, had had drinks on the premises while on duty. Bolger said in evidence that he took over the license of the Caledonian Hotel on August 11, 1947. It was his first license. Constable Nathan was one of three constables who called on him 10 days after he took over. Constable Nathan, as spokesman, told him that there was usually liquor left in the garage each night. Constable Nathan said that the, constables would, look the other way and that he need not worry about any uniformed men except sergeants. Constables, inducting Constable Nathan, often telephoned with requests for liquor, which witness always obeyed. ~ . , , Last Christmas witness said he had at their request made presents to certain constables. Early in April last three policemen, Constable Nathan again the spokesman, came to the hotel and told him that it was getting too hot around the town and that they were not going to take anything fur-* tber from him, or any other hotel, until things quietened down. Liquor Given to Buy Immunity Both Constables Nathan and Stentiforcl had been on the hotel premises after hours in uniform and had had drinks in a small room behind the office. . , , . , Bolger said he had not knowingly sold liquor to outsiders on the night or the offence, but admitted not taking all > the care he should have to keep others In reply to the magistrate, Bolger admitted that the liquor given to the constables had been to buy immunity although he was_ acting all the time on their instructions. . The magistrate entered a conviction for selling liquor after hours and said that Bolger had convicted himself out of his own mouth. He had thought seriously about the attack made on the police, but would refrain from commenting on this. Persons in higher authority might be desirous of taking the matter further and it might well arise in further criminal charges. .... It was not necessary for him to reach a decision, but if it was he would not hesitate to do so. Bolger was fined £lO with costs. The other two charges were withdrawn