BOGUS ’PHONE CALL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 163, 26 June 1935, Page 5

BOGUS ’PHONE CALL

Police Allegedly Hoaxed YOUNG MAN FOR TRIAL A telephone message to the police on February 8 led to the appearance of Andrew James O’Donnell at the Hastings Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. Miller, S.M., this morning, when he was charged with making a false statement with intent that Constable Bowick. should act on it to the substantial detriment of his duties as a police officer. The message was an follow: “There are two men fighting in front of Mrs Nelson’s store in Omahu road, and one of them looks as if he is dying. You had better come up immediately.” Mr L. A. Rogers appeared for o’DonnelL who pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Macnajnara, in outlining the tacts of the charge, said that at 11-30 p.m. on February 8 Constable Bowick was on duty at the watchhouse, and in consequence of a telephone message he proceeded to Stortford Lodge, but was unable to gain any knowledge of a disturbance. Ho saw the accused who was slightly under the influence of liquor wheeling a bicycle. He had previously gone into a petrol station where he was overheard giving a message to the police on the telephone. Constable Bowick, in evidence, said that he was on duty in. the watchhouse on the night in question, and at 11.30 p.m. he received ft telephone message which gave rise to the proceedingis. In consequence of the message witness proceeded to Heretaunga street to pick up Constable Alexander, who was on night duty. They both then went to the store in Omahu road. On arrival, the store was in darkness, there being no sign of any disturbance. Returning to Stortford Lodge, they met the accused who refused at first to give his name, which he subsequently gave as Joseph O’Donnell. At Stortford Lodge witness accosted accused again as the result of information he had received. He denied any knowledge of the telephone message. Defendant had a bicycle and was slightly intoxicated. Constable Gibb said that he interviewed the accused on March 27 when he denied giving any telephone message, and refused to make a statement. He denied that he was at the petrol station on the night in question. Frederick Round said that on the night of February 8 he saw the accused, whom he knew, at about 11.30 p.m. at the Premier Petrol Service Station. A man used the ’phone at the station and rang 3135, the police station, stating that two men were fighting at the store opposite the hospital where there was ®ly grog-selling, and that one of them was dying. Witness, who was close by, heard the constable ask who was speaking, but no answer was given. Witness wa® not certain that the accused was the man who used the telephone, but as far as he could remember he was. Witness saw the man again a little later on the road when a constable spoke to him. The man to w-hom the constable was speaking witness recognised as Andy O’Donnell.

Douglas Carrington said that he was at the service station in company with the previous witness, when a man by the name of O’Donnell came into tho office and used the telephone to ring the police. Witness did not know the man previously, but he was like the accused. He was the same man whom he saw speaking to a constable a. short time afterwards. Mr Rogers submitted that the information was laid on terms which did not appear in the Statute. There was no evidence before the Court to show that any person acted on a. false statement to his substantial detriment, and therefore there was no case prima facie or otherwise to go to a higher Court. His Worship said that his view of the section of the Act was that it was an offence for anyone to make a false statement to another to his substantial detriment. The constable was on duty at the watchhouse, and to be taken away from his duties there was to his substantial detriment. O'Donnell pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Napier for trial. He was admitted to bail totalling £lOO.