MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NAPIER.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 215, 29 August 1911, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NAPIER.

TESTER DA Y A I’TE R NOON. After the luncheon adjournment yesterday afternoon, the case against Thomas Spear for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises, and selling of liquor to a man who is alleged to have been intoxicated was continued. Arthur Hallam said there was no one in the bar when ■ lie was knocked from MeConki ■”G’Did. To Air. Dolan: He u- from Woodville, and this was 1. first time he had been in the vvit.nc- 1 -ox in Napier. First saw AlcCm.Kcyoutside Warren’s Hotel, and he was not drunk then. McConkey had onlyone drink at Warren’s Hotel. After this drink AlcConkey showed signs of intoxication. Witness had a drink with AlcConkey, but had several others during the evening. He had three “long shandies” altogether. Knew a McKenzie but he did not live at Port Ahuriri, and witness did not see him on the night of the 18th. It was after 11 o’clock when witness went to bed. Witness sawno one in the liar at the Crown Hotel. A man called Downing was not at the slide. Was at Mrs. McConkey’s house only a few minutes. Did not give information to the police. Would swear McConkey was not at a social that evening. To Inspector Dwyer: The hotels were not closed when witness saw AlcConkey with the two bottles of beer.

Agnes McConkey, wife of Alexander McConkey, deposed that she remembered Friday, 18th. That day her husband was paid. He did not return to lea that evening. She looked for him at the place where he worked. She saw her husband outside the Union Hotel. This was the first time she had seen him that evening. He appeared to have had drink; A little after 8 o’clock, witness went to the Union Hotel and waited. She heard her husband’s voice. Later she saw him following Hallam out of the hotel. She beard him ask Warren for another drink, and say that he would then go home. Warren refused. Witness then walked in the direction of home. Her husband went into Spear’s Hotel. She sent Hallam to tell Spear not to serve him with '(link. Spears asked McConkey if he was prohibited. On learning that lie was not, Spears said he might as well have his money as anyone else and handed her husband a glass of oeer. M itness walked in and spilt the beer which was on the counter. Her husband’s hand was on the glass, he fell back on to the floor. There vias no one else present except Mr. and Mrs. Spears, who were behind the bar. Iler husband was very drunk. He was a powerful man, and would not fall over 111 witness’ attempt to spill the beer. Witness went outside and waited to see if Mr. Spears would put, her husband Olli. She went, for the police, hut could not get, one. At about 1 or 2 o clock nt the morning her husband •eturued more drunk than she had ever seett him before. She would no f allow her husband into the room. He attempted to get through the window but. her father pushed him out. After this witness took her children and stayed with her sister in \\aghorne street. lie was ;i good husband. I>ut drink affected hila badly. About three mouths ago witness went to Spears and told him not to give her husband’ drink. He said that he bad not given him vlriuk. She felt that Spears had snubbed her. Witness I old Spears that she was a respectable woman, and was Irvin • to .teb ml her children. Sjica’s i.-pli. il that she w not a respectable woman.

To Mi-. Dolan: She thought her husband was only slightly under tieinfluence of liquor when in front < •' the 1 nion Hotel. Hallam went twice into the Crown Hotel. ();■ ;he lust occasion she heard notai ig. an the second she did. Michael Hickey, fattier of Mr;-. Met onkey, said he was p»-< when McConkey came hmm-. J<--('linker was then drunk. Robert Nightingale, barman. the I nion Hotel. Pori Ahuriri. said hr- knew McConkey, who was in the hotel about i. 30, on the night of the Ibth. McConkey “shouted” himself and Hallam a drink. At the door witness refused to give McConkey another drink, saying: Mrs. McConkey was waiting f,„. hjm About i).30 he refused McConkey a bottle *f beer, as his wife had complained. It was pointed out that these •stai-um-nts were coni radict ory to those contained in tht- statc-mrnt. ( ' f -'»t’nuing, witness said he refused t<»gH(, McConkey>z'(liiiiK ; tl d Mime had language vy/is used. (hi the second-occasioj.;-/ the man bail hail liquor »nt_ j ><fas not incapable. Witness told.v'he Sergeant that tljx: man v.-.V' ‘trunk because if was

common expression. A man was H <> drunk when he was sober, but litcould be partly drunk. On bis see: mid visit he was partly drunk. He could have safely served the man then as he was not incapable. He thought it was right to serve a man witli liquor when li<- was partlydrunk. He had intcrv icwcil Mr. tbpeats anti Mr. Dolan concerning the case. To Mr. Dolan: Witness saw him on Saturday evening when he asked if In- was a witness in this case. He also asked witness it lit- refused to "■'key on account of his wife s complaint, or on ai i ount of his being drunk.

Witness replied that it was the former reason. In other hotels he had se<-n Other men given beer when •pnte as nmeh under the influence of beer as .McConkey was. At no time old he give McConkey a bottle of beer. Sergeant Cummings inter- ' tewed him. The statement was read ; to him. but as he was flurried ; lie did not notice anv mistakes ! Aly. Dolan said that the ■metaphv- ; Heal and dialectical terms" used by [ t u ast witness in his statements | were not quite -orrec-t. It was a thing ; witnesses in the ; Supreme C h . .. b fTer t . (>n< . Prninß U>e of. „. k . nness a man att ‘“ Chief .Tus-

1 . .J 1 I ire could not determiiic hen 1 man was drunk. Spear h.id ]>ct ji 21. | years with a license, ami only oncil. | was convicted in peenrar cir< uuiij j stances, being fined 5 • | Janet Margaret Speau, • if- of thi. 1 defendant, said she remfemLcred th*, I IMli August. About 7,sti | i-anit- in and called for ) ;1 . long beeit ilt was given to hijn and ’A> then ord| ered two more for the other i.r-n the l»;>r. He was quite sone)’, Ai." tlicy con versed together. Just, aft er*, this another man came in ;oi<i Me- j Conkey talked with him for |i>w i minutes. AleConkcv asked f»r a i

medium beer at about a quaric-- to eight. Mr. Spear was in the bar all the time. Hallam came in and warned witness not to serve McConkey. A few minutes after she saw AlcConkey with a ‘’shard. ’ The next thing was, MeConk* v was knocked down. AlcConkey g< 1 ,>p and said that he must apologise for his wife’s behaviour. He paid .or the glass? Witness had been two and a-half years at the Pprt and lad often refused to give men drink. Hallam did not tell witness’ husband not to serve AlcConkey with drink. She was the only person informed. She did not hear the conversation that Mrs. AlcConkey- said took place.

To Inspector Dwyer: McConkey at 7.30 in the evening had one long and one medium beer. He left at 8 o’clock and did not return. .McConkey was only- in the hotel that evening. She promised Hallam that she would not serve the man with more beer. Her husband did not hear this. Hallam then went away. Thomas Spear, licensee of the Crown Hotel, said he was in the bar at about 7.30 and saw- McConkey receive drink from his wife. He appeared to be sober and witness was speaking to him. He walked and talked all right. Several men came into the bar while McConkey was there. Hallam came in about 15 minutes after AlcConkey. He did not hear what Hallam said to Mrs. Spear. Hallam did not speak to witness, and he did not ask if McConkey was prohibited. Witness did not reply that he might as well have his sixpence as anyone else. Witness gave AlcConkey a “pony” shandy. Just as he was about to drink it, Mrs. McConkey rushed in at the door and knocked him down. The glass was-• Broken. McConkey on rising made some remark and then apologised for his wife’s conduct. McConkey said that he supposed ho could have his “nightcap.” Witness replied that he could not after what had occurred. At no time previous to this had McConkey been supplied with drink. Had been a licensee for nearly 26 y ears, and beyond the trifling conviction at Gore had never been before the Court. He and his wife had often refused drink to men who were under the influence.

To Inspector Dwyer: McConkeyasked for a “nightcap ’ anti this was the drink Mrs. McConkey knocked away. There was no charge for this drink. McConkey < ame in occasionally and witness had shouted f<>>- him often. Hallam was felling ling a lie when he said that sixpence was paid for it. When the glass was knocked out of McConkey’s hand Ibere were others ui the bar. Hallam was not there. Mi's. Mel’onkcy- knocked her husband down with a. blow from her fist. The blow was well delivered and got. home about, the shoulder. At this time McConkey was perfectly sober. The man was “flattened out.” but got, up immediately. Witness 'own wife was able to knock him down. Some months ago Mrs. McConkey came in land Risked witness not. 1.0 serve her husband. He replied that, he vvidfld not give him too much. The Evidence of Mrs. McConkey con* erning that occasion was -‘stretched.” Witness gaver. very little credit.

Furthei- ejf'idencc was given Gy pers ns vvhti were in the bar at the time of the jx-curreucc. Sergeant said 1 viewed th**witness Cooper Saturday night, following the /in que-.t ion. Cot per bad sa id tb o he saw iMcC’mkey on the Friday night and that, McCoikcv was ’drunk. Cooper ')iad also said that McConkey hadl n-’t been to work on Ihe SatnrdayJ, and that, when he did come In-, would sack him. a:> di'Hiiken men (were no good Io him. Cooper had I merr-vc'-. said that he tlhl not wait io be mixed up in any affair an/I that if he was called to the Court lie would say nothing.

To V'lr. Dolan: He’took no noirs of what Cooper raid, because he knew ’t would he no use. C toper had tyiid he would sty nothing. Mr.j Dolan quoted “Taylor on evidence/," and submitted that >Scrgeam# Cummings’ creed was that a mad* was guilty till be was proved to I lie innocent. Inspector > I,O ‘ L | playi ntJyi-D-’ - know lent, "inane to t ik J r, tl sa tim \ toxi \ infoi a nth. r? peop: persor 3a rcadv ' y sufficie; The qm . the deft ’ I't-c.light , t of either : ’ |i| v. as clear * 1 1tlie wiinet e?, | that McCc SS \ the Crown ® j Union Hofei. <• instant. It fore his 'is McConkey ha beers, and '-fit. ■ I* J a tery little < -’;j| the witnesses. -

were to be believed, before McConkey entered the Crown Hotel for the second time he was drunk. It was only necessary to have listened to the evidence of Hallam to show that An important element in considering whether Hallam or Airs McConkey were to be believed was the fact that AlcConkey himself deposed that when he left the Union Hotel for the second time, aud before he cntoj-cd' the Crown Hotel the second lime he had lost all recollection and could swear to nothing until he woke up the next morning. There was also the evidence of Robert Nightingale, who was not a willing witness for the police. He (Nightingale) had made a statement to the police, which, of course, was not evidence strictly against the defendant, and that ev idenec had been contradicted in the court. In tlie statement referred to this witness stated AlcConkey was drunk. In the ev idenee that day the witness said that the man was not drunk. In considering the evidence it must not be overlooked that this witness had said, “I do m t know when a man is (hunk. 1 told the sergeant that be was drunk heeause it is a comniDit thing to say that a man was ,<i'.(i’'.k. A man can he parllv drunk" etc. When these statements vveic considered in the light of the evidence of McConkey and Hallam, and AlcConkey losing his memory while g<'ing from the Union to the

Crown Hotel, lit- thought there was little difficulty in arriving at, the conclusion that, when McConkey came back to the Crown Hotel the second time he was served with a drink by the licensee after lie (the licensee) had been warned not to serve him. There was no doubt about that if ine evidence for the prosecution was to be believed. Coming to the evidence for the defence .there could be no doubt that the evidence given :is to McConkey’s condition referred not, to his second but to his first visit to the Crown Hotel. Neither of the men who bad give t evidence for the defence was at the hotel when AlcConkey and Hallai.’i reachcti inert' except Downing. Downing had let fall a remark that a drink was supplied to McConkev I>y Mr. Spear after McCoiikev had. I>ecn requested to leave the premises on the promise made by McConkey that, lie was going home if he got that, tlrmk. in the first place no sober man would make a proporal like that, and no licensee in bis reuses would dream of making such a suggestion to a man who was strictly sober. Furthermore the relations between Mr and .Mrs McConkey apart, from his (McConkey's) drinking habit vv.-ls goal. Each respected ami trusted the other. Was it fr> he supposed that, Mrs Me( onkey would come into the vvitncsi; box 1.0 publish her husband's shame unless what she was’ saying was Into ami she believed what she was saying! And Hallam bad no motive to go into the box and it'll a story vvilb the idea of ercal ing a false impression, in His ] Worship’s opinion the witnesses for the prosccul uni had told the truth, and. v icvveti rightly, the evuience for the defence in many particulars substantiated the cviilencc given for the pr'isec-.it ion. It d-d not matter much which of tne iidormations was selecied. The defendant would bae to be convicted on cither. His Worship chose to convict him on the informal ion of permitting drum kenness. He was not going to consider the question ef endorsement then. The defendant would be i-on-’ctcd of permitting drunkenness and t.ncd £lo and £2/7 - costs and would c called upon that day virek to ovv cause why his license should t be endorsed.

r he other information was vvithwn. cConkcy asked to have a prohin order made out against him. this was done